A rising social media star’s career just came to a shocking halt. Guava Shuishui, who gained fame online for her unconventional beauty product reviews, is making headlines for reasons nobody expected.
As reported by Daily Mail, Guava Shuishui, a Taiwanese beauty influencer known for eating makeup products during her videos, died last week at just 24 after a “sudden illness.” Her family made the announcement on her Instagram account.
Followers of Guava Shuishui, also known as Guava Beauty, were familiar with her unique approach to beauty content—she would not only test makeup products but also taste them, sometimes consuming entire items in front of the camera. Her death has sparked heated debate over the risks and ethics of content creation in the age of social media.
Guava Shuishui’s videos were part of the “mukbang” trend, a genre where online creators record themselves eating large quantities of food, or in her case, non-food items like lipstick and face masks. Her willingness to eat makeup products, blush, and even cotton pads drew thousands of followers and curious viewers.
Critics raised concerns as her popularity soared. Many are worried about the potential toxicity of cosmetics when ingested, especially by impressionable young fans. Some of her most viral videos included warnings stating that her content was not suitable for children under six. Still, critics and concerned viewers regularly urged her to stop, warning she was setting a dangerous example.
In one late 2024 video that gained particular attention, Guava Shuishui used a fork to scoop out and eat an entire jelly blush product. Fans flooded the comments section, expressing fears about the consequences of such stunts.
News of Shuishui’s death hit her community hard. Her family shared a statement on her social media account, expressing gratitude for the support she received throughout her career. They described her as hard-working, serious, and shining even in difficult moments and thanked everyone who had supported and interacted with her online.
Many followers left messages of love and concern, reminiscing about her dedication to her craft. Her final post, published on May 24, signaled an abrupt end to her online presence: “Logging out from the world. Setting off on a new journey. All business collaborations are suspended.”
Her pinned videos continued to receive attention even after her passing, with commenters debating whether such risky content should ever have been allowed on social platforms.
Guava Shuishui’s death has reignited debates about the responsibilities of online influencers. Critics argue that creators who push boundaries for views and attention can unintentionally encourage risky, unhealthy, or outright dangerous behaviors. Some experts warn that normalizing the ingestion of non-food items, especially in the name of entertainment, poses significant health and ethical risks.
Supporters of content regulation point to Shuishui’s case as a clear example of social media’s darker side. They believe platforms should do more to enforce age restrictions and content warnings, particularly in genres like mukbang, which have become increasingly extreme in recent years.
Yet others defend the freedom of online creators, stressing the importance of personal choice and warning against overregulation. They argue that viewers carry responsibility for their own actions and that creators like Shuishui should be remembered for their creativity rather than blamed for broader social trends.
Guava Shuishui, a 24-year-old Taiwanese beauty influencer, became known for eating makeup products on camera, a practice that ultimately led to controversy and concern from fans and critics. She died on May 24 after a sudden illness, according to her family, ending a career defined by her unconventional content and devoted following.
Her passing took place just as debates around influencer responsibility and the limits of online entertainment reached new heights.
As her family and followers mourn, calls are growing for clearer guidelines and greater accountability on social platforms to protect both creators and their audiences in the future.
Tom Thibodeau's second stint as New York Knicks head coach has come to an abrupt end following one of the franchise's most successful seasons in decades. The dismissal comes just weeks after the team's Eastern Conference Finals defeat to the Indiana Pacers.
According to the Daily Mail, Knicks President Leon Rose announced the decision in a statement emphasizing the organization's championship aspirations. Rose thanked Thibodeau for his dedication while explaining the team would pursue a different direction moving forward.
The firing marks a stunning reversal for Thibodeau, who guided the Knicks to their first Eastern Conference Finals appearance since 2000. Despite reaching the playoffs in four of five seasons under his leadership, including back-to-back 50-win campaigns for the first time since the 1990s, organizational pressure for championship success ultimately cost him his position.
President Leon Rose delivered a clear message about the franchise's elevated standards in his official statement regarding Thibodeau's dismissal. Rose expressed gratitude for the coach's commitment while emphasizing that championship pursuit necessitated organizational changes.
Rose stated in his announcement: "Our organization is singularly focused on winning a championship for our fans. This pursuit led us to the difficult decision to inform Tom Thibodeau that we've decided to move in another direction." The president acknowledged Thibodeau's contributions while maintaining that difficult decisions were necessary for title aspirations.
The decision reflects heightened expectations following the team's recent success under Thibodeau's guidance. After seven consecutive seasons without playoff appearances before his arrival, the Knicks transformed into legitimate contenders during his tenure, making the organizational standards significantly more demanding.
Several Knicks players and prominent supporters publicly defended Thibodeau following news of his dismissal. Swingman Josh Hart immediately took to social media to express appreciation for his former coach's impact on the organization.
Hart's social media post read simply: "Forever Grateful. Thank You!" The message reflected widespread player sentiment regarding Thibodeau's influence on team culture and competitive success. Support extended beyond the roster to include celebrity fans and former players who witnessed the transformation firsthand.
Actor and longtime Knicks supporter Ben Stiller offered extensive praise for Thibodeau's contributions to franchise revival:
I am a Tom Thibodeau fan. He brought this team back. I felt he gave every bit of himself and was always looking to improve. I will always be grateful for how far he brought the Knicks. They are relevant again. They are championship contenders again. The Knicks became winners again with him. Thank you COACH THIBS.
Multiple potential replacements have already surfaced in early speculation surrounding the Knicks' coaching search. Former Denver Nuggets coach Mike Malone represents an intriguing option, given his New York roots and recent championship experience with the 2023 title-winning Nuggets squad.
Jay Wright's name has generated significant fan interest due to his connections with current Knicks players from his Villanova coaching days. The presence of former Wildcats stars Jalen Brunson, Josh Hart, and Mikal Bridges createsa natural appeal for Wright's potential candidacy among supporters.
Surprisingly, former NBA player Metta World Peace threw his hat into the ring through social media commentary. The Queens native and former St. John's star declared himself "the perfect choice for head coach" despite limited coaching experience, adding an unexpected element to early speculation.
Thibodeau's dismissal coincides with growing questions about the team's roster composition and potential trades during the upcoming offseason. Center Karl-Anthony Towns faces trade speculation after reportedly frustrating teammates and coaches with defensive inconsistencies throughout the season.
According to reports, players and coaching staff grew increasingly frustrated with Towns' defensive lapses and apparent unwillingness to address fundamental problems. These concerns have sparked rumors about potential roster changes as the organization seeks championship-caliber personnel.
The Knicks reportedly join multiple NBA teams interested in pursuing Milwaukee Bucks superstar Giannis Antetokounmpo should he become available. Such pursuit would require significant roster restructuring and potentially involve trading current core players to create necessary salary cap space for a championship-level acquisition.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) is pushing back against claims that she orchestrated the creation of fake social media accounts to boost her image, calling the accusations frivolous and lacking evidence.
Allegations against Mace suggest her staff created fake online personas to support her politically, an accusation she firmly denies, prioritizing instead her legislative agenda in technology and women's rights, as Fox News reports.
The claims surfaced in an article by Wired magazine, which cited testimony from former aides and political consultants. Wesley Donehue, a political consultant, provided a deposition mentioned in the report. In response to these allegations, Mace dismissed them as opportunistic and claims they came from "bitter exes."
Mace criticized the reliance on unnamed sources in the Wired article. She expressed skepticism over the claims, stating there wasn't any real evidence backing them. "When a story relies on ‘anonymous former staffers,’ it’s journalist-speak for ‘We didn’t have anything real, so we called the bitter exes,’" she said.
Undeterred, Mace reiterated her dedication to her legislative work. Emphasizing her position as chair of the House Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation, she noted her focus on areas like cybersecurity, data protection, and women's rights. Known for her tech-savvy background as a self-educated computer coder, Mace took pride in her understanding of tech intricacies, saying it offered her an edge over many of her Washington peers.
Mace has consistently advocated for policies shielding sexual assault survivors and safeguarding women's and parental rights. Earlier this month, she made headlines again, opposing a transgender activist accused of directing threats towards her. Her commentary on the matter has sparked both support and debate.
Addressing criticism, Mace extolled the virtues of accountability and directness in political discourse. She remarked on the transparency of her communication, contrasting it with the alleged clandestine behavior detailed in the Wired article. "Unlike some folks, I don’t need a burner phone to tell the truth. I say what I mean, I mean what I say, and I post it from my real account, with my name on it. Accountability starts there," she asserted, underscoring her stance on openness.
Mace's technological proficiency became a focal point in her defense against these claims. "It turns out writing code teaches you to spot bugs in software and in political BS," she quipped, highlighting how her skills translate into her political life. She also addressed the article’s premise humorously, suggesting the accusations were as credible as the number of burner phones she owns. "About as many burner phones as Wired has credible sources for ‘burner-gate,’" she remarked, dismissing the speculation with humor.
In a lighthearted acknowledgment of the situation, Mace took to social media, joking about having "multiple berners," which resonated with her followers and defused some of the tension surrounding the allegations.
Through these events, Mace emphasized the importance of facing facts head-on. "I lead with facts, I speak for the people who sent me here and I don’t hide behind consultants or filtered statements," she declared, maintaining that transparency remains at the heart of her political ethos.
The issue of media reliance on anonymous sources also drew her ire, as she criticized their tendency to give undue weight to unverified claims. Mace lamented this trend, noting its potential to distract from genuine discourse and legislative priorities. Despite the controversy, Mace's resolve remains focused on her goals. "I’ll keep telling the uncomfortable truth. And if it makes you squirm, good. That means you’re finally paying attention," she concluded, reiterating her commitment to honest dialogue.
As conversation about the allegations continues, Mace's stance exemplifies a dedication to accountability and truthfulness in politics. Her comments suggest a willingness to confront issues directly, rooted in both her political and technological expertise.
The issues raised in Wired’s article underscore broader themes of transparency and accountability in modern political arenas, highlighting the complexities of public discourse in an era of rapid information dissemination.
A significant political shift occurred in Kentucky as state Sen. Robin Webb announced her departure from the Democratic Party to join the Republican ranks.
This party switch has notable repercussions for Gov. Andy Beshear and the state's Democratic Party, adding to their challenges ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, as Fox News reports.
Webb, who represents Kentucky's 18th Senate District -- an area deeply rooted in coal country -- has been a longstanding member of the Democratic Party. She rose to her current position after initially earning a seat in the Kentucky State House back in 1998.
This was achieved by winning against Republican opponent Ramona Gee, indicative of a time when Democrats had a firm grasp on the region, backed by strong support from unionized sectors and coal industry groups.
Webb has been vocal about her reasons for changing her affiliation, emphasizing a growing disconnect between her principles and those of her former party. "The Democratic Party continues its lurch to the left, focusing on policies that hurt the workforce and economic development in my region," Webb stated in explaining her decision.
This dissatisfaction led her to conclude that remaining a Democrat had become untenable and counterproductive for her constituents.
The Kentucky Democratic Party has expressed its discontent with Webb's decision. Colmon Elridge, chair of the group, accused her of aligning with a party intent on undermining public services critical to state residents.
Upon revealing her party switch, Webb received a warm reception from Robert Benvenuti, the Republican Party of Kentucky Chairman. Praising Webb for her thoughtful approach to issues, Benvenuti welcomed her into the Republican fold, echoing the sentiments of many Kentuckians who have similarly felt disillusioned by the Democratic Party's contemporary stances.
In contrast, Democratic Party voices, like that of Elridge, highlighted concerns over the priorities represented by Webb's new political alignment. They conveyed skepticism about her ability to serve the interests of Kentuckians under her new party umbrella, particularly regarding the impact on health care and education.
This party switch not only affects Webb's legislative role but also poses strategic challenges for Beshear. Although Beshear operates as a Democrat, his administration has faced ongoing resistance from a predominantly Republican-controlled state government, including the attorney general's office and both legislative chambers.
Beshear, who is rumored to be considering a presidential run in 2028, may find these local shifts impacting his aspirations. His ability to effectively mobilize the Democratic Party base in Kentucky, already a challenging task given the state's current political climate, is now further complicated by Webb's departure.
Kentucky's political landscape is deeply rooted in history, where Democrats have traditionally enjoyed support from coal mining communities and labor groups. However, the recent trend has seen a rightward shift, with many voters feeling disenfranchised by the national Democratic Party's shift in ideological focus. This has opened doors for Republicans to make inroads in previously Democratic strongholds, including Webb's rural district.
Webb's move could presage further shifts in Kentucky's political dynamics. Her decision may encourage other Democrats feeling similarly disenfranchised to reassess their political affiliations, adding complexity to the upcoming electoral contests.
As Webb joins the Republican Party, she emphasizes her intrinsic connection to her community, stating, "First and foremost, I’m a mother, a rancher and a lawyer with deep personal and professional roots in Kentucky’s coal country." Her focus, she insists, is on pursuing what she perceives to be the best interests of her constituents.
In a state where political affiliations have historically been strongly tied to industry and economic pressures, Webb's switch underscores a broader ideological reevaluation among Kentucky's politicians and voters. This shift not only accentuates the existing political rift but also sets the stage for the upcoming electoral battle lines in the lead-up to the midterm elections.
In a significant ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court has reined in judicial authority to block infrastructure projects based on environmental concerns. The 8-0 decision establishes clearer boundaries for courts reviewing federal agencies' environmental assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
According to Fox News, the ruling centered on a Utah railway project designed to transport crude oil from the Uinta Basin to a national railway network. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the opinion, which establishes that courts must defer to federal agencies' environmental reviews unless they fall outside a "broad zone of reasonableness."
The decision comes amid the Trump administration's ongoing criticism of what it views as judicial overreach in infrastructure and environmental matters. The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, addressed whether federal agencies must consider environmental impacts beyond the specific project under review.
The controversy began when the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC) sought approval from the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to construct an 88-mile railway in Utah for transporting crude oil. The federal agency conducted an environmental impact statement as required by law.
Opponents in Eagle County, Colorado challenged the review, arguing the STB failed to adequately consider all environmental effects, particularly those that might occur outside the immediate project area. They claimed this oversight violated NEPA requirements for comprehensive environmental assessment.
A D.C. Circuit Court initially ruled in favor of the opponents, ordering a more thorough environmental review before the project could proceed. This decision effectively halted the infrastructure development, prompting SCIC to petition the Supreme Court in March 2024.
Justice Kavanaugh's opinion clarified that NEPA does not require agencies to consider the environmental effects of separate projects, even if the current project might lead to their construction or increased use. The justices emphasized courts should not "micromanage" agency decisions.
"NEPA does not allow courts, 'under the guise of judicial review' of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand," Kavanaugh wrote in the opinion.
The ruling was joined in full by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a separate concurring opinion.
Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado voiced strong opposition to the decision, warning about potential long-term environmental damage resulting from the ruling. She specifically highlighted risks to the Colorado River.
"This decision lays the groundwork for an environmental catastrophe," DeGette said. "As the harsh impacts of the climate crisis increase the vulnerability of the Colorado River, the risk of an oil spill along this train route is unacceptable."
Environmental advocates fear the ruling could weaken environmental protections by limiting the scope of impact statements, potentially allowing projects with significant cumulative effects to proceed with less scrutiny. They argue this could particularly affect communities along transportation routes.
The ruling comes at a time when the Trump administration has repeatedly criticized what it describes as judicial overreach through universal injunctions that have blocked various executive policies. The administration has argued such sweeping judicial actions exceed proper court authority.
"Universal injunctions are an unconstitutional abuse of judicial power," Senator Charles Grassley, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Fox News Digital earlier this month. He cited recent examples of district judges blocking presidential executive orders, arguing that "Judges are not policymakers."
The Supreme Court is expected to address the broader issue of universal injunctions in a separate case in the coming weeks. Legal experts suggest Thursday's decision signals the Court's willingness to place limits on judicial intervention in administrative matters.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton found himself in the middle of an unexpected confrontation in Austin this week after being asked to step away from the House floor by state officials. The encounter, which played out in the waning days of the legislative session, involved several Republican lawmakers and has set off a heated debate about House rules and political protocol.
According to Breitbart, House officials instructed Paxton to exit the floor because he did not have the required invitation to be present during a session. Although some Republican members had asked Paxton to join them for a photo op, the House Sergeant at Arms intervened and enforced the rule.
The rules of the Texas House of Representatives do not grant the Attorney General, or even former House members, automatic access to the floor during session. House Administration Committee Chairman Charlie Geren confirmed that Paxton was directed to the Members’ Lounge instead, where he later posed for photos with lawmakers away from the public eye.
The incident has exposed divisions within the Texas GOP, with some members frustrated about what they see as overly rigid enforcement of House protocol. Supporters of Paxton argue that the decision to remove him, especially after an invitation from Republican colleagues, was unnecessary and heavy-handed.
Paxton himself expressed surprise at the move, stating he believed his previous service in the Legislature gave him authority to be on the floor. However, House staff clarified that current rules only grant such privileges to those explicitly listed, and the Attorney General is not among them. Critics of Paxton say the rules are clear and were applied fairly, regardless of political affiliation.
On the other hand, some see the episode as another example of the ongoing power struggle within the Texas Republican Party, particularly between House leadership and statewide officials like Paxton. Supporters note that the incident could have been handled with more discretion rather than making a public display in the session’s final days.
Charlie Geren, who chairs the House Administration Committee, was quick to explain the basis for the decision. He shared the relevant portion of the House rules with the press, showing that only a specific list of individuals have automatic access to the floor while the House is in session. The list notably excludes the Attorney General.
Geren clarified to the Quorum Report’s Scott Braddock that Paxton was not banned from the chamber, just the floor itself. The Members’ Lounge, where Paxton was escorted, is a VIP area adjacent to the chamber where officials and guests can meet more privately. The disputed photo op eventually took place there, away from the House proceedings.
Paxton acknowledged the authority of both Geren and House Speaker Dade Phelan to grant or deny permission for non-members to be on the floor. Still, he questioned the necessity of the action, suggesting it was blown out of proportion. As Paxton put it: “They made a big deal out of it. They didn’t need to do that.”
While critics of Paxton say the rules are non-negotiable and applied to all, his allies believe the episode is part of a larger pattern of tension between Paxton and House leadership. The Texas Attorney General has been a polarizing figure in state politics, especially after recent high-profile legal and political battles.
Some conservative activists argue the decision to remove Paxton was politically motivated. They point to what they see as ongoing efforts by certain House leaders to sideline outspoken conservatives. For these supporters, the incident is less about House rules and more about intra-party politics.
Meanwhile, observers outside the Republican Party see the event as a simple matter of enforcing long-standing procedures. They argue that the House has an obligation to maintain order and ensure the rules are respected, regardless of the individual’s position or popularity. For them, the controversy should serve as a reminder that no official is above the rules of the chamber.
Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General, found himself asked to leave the House floor during a legislative session after being invited by Republican lawmakers for a photo opportunity.
House officials, citing explicit rules that do not grant floor access to the Attorney General, directed Paxton instead to the Members’ Lounge, where the photo was ultimately taken.
The incident has ignited debate among Texas Republicans about House protocol and the handling of such situations, highlighting deeper divisions within the party. As the legislative session ends, all eyes will be on how House leadership and statewide officials navigate their strained relationships moving forward.