The Democrats’ ‘All Trick, No Treat’ Strategy

The gloaming deepened on a Halloween in the early 1970s. A restless gaggle of youths just turned teens pondered making a final stab at trick-or-treating. The problem? They had no costumes, having earlier laughed at how such garb was for little kids, not for them. But now, uncool or not, those costumed kids were getting free candy. They were not.

Amid the enveloping darkness, Jack-o’-lanterns flickered and costumed children tittered and flitted from door to door. Time was expiring. What to do?

One youth, his face etched with angst, hesitantly floated a trial balloon in the gloaming. “Let’s just knock doors like this.”

The gaggle eyed one another’s black T-shirts, jeans, and boots. The bald suggestion hung in the air until –

Shrugs. Swiftly, pillowcases were pilfered from their unwitting parents and the gaggle’s quest for treats sans costumes commenced.

It didn’t go well. The adults who actually answered their doors to the gaggle were less than impressed by these youths’ brazen attempt to get candy. Their glares and questions were always the same. “Where are your costumes?”

The youths’ response, too, was constant: “We’re late 20th-century teenagers.” Almost invariably, it went over like a lead balloon (or, given it was the late 1970s, more like a Led Zeppelin). Needless to say, no free treat was forthcoming.

There was, however, a singular exception to the rule. One elderly man, upon opening his door, did let out a low whistle at the restless gaggle’s “gumption.” But this backhanded compliment was all he tendered before he yanked his candy bucket back behind his less-than-politely closed door.

The lesson of this Halloween horror story? Sometimes you need to wear a costume to get what you want.

Today, this lesson forms the basis of the Democrats’ general election strategy.

In their primaries, many successful Democrat candidates won by appealing to their party’s extreme, America-loathing, socialist wing. It was an authentic approach, for they were making a legitimate appeal to like-minded left-wing extremists. Being and articulating exactly who they are, these radical candidates received what they sought from their fellow travelers – the Democrat Party’s nomination.

Yet, while a necessary step, the nomination was not the ultimate destination. Thus, on the cusp of the general election, these far-left, extremist Democrats in competitive seats resembled the gaggle of restless youths from that Halloween back in the 1970s.

Were these Democrats to wage general election campaigns by remaining true to their radical selves, some citizens may well begrudgingly admire their gumption for admitting they are “21st-century Bolsheviks” and, in some socialist circles, reward them with a vote or two. But the bulk of voters would find these radical Democrats unpalatable. As a result, these extremists would not get the treat they sought – namely, enough votes to win the general election.

Their cynical solution? The Democrats’ “all trick, no treat” political strategy.

Armed with millions in billionaires’ chump change (and heaven knows what other funding sources), these Democrat extremists conveniently doff their hidebound socialist ideology, wrap themselves in the American flag, and tuck their hammer and sickle beneath it. Ta-da! These hardcore leftists are now the costumed “moderates” knocking on your door begging for your vote.

But before you reward them for temporarily cloaking their radicalism, recall the recent past when they tricked enough citizens into treating them with their vote.

How quickly these alleged moderates ripped off their masks and revealed themselves in word and deed.

These radical Democrats passed trillions of dollars in spending bills that enriched their political cronies and spurred rampant inflation; opened wide the border for millions of illegal entries; imposed the illiberal, inherently divisive diversity, equity, and inclusion identitarian ideology; weaponized the police powers and intelligence agencies of the state against those who dissented from their radical policies, including concerned parents and devout Catholics, among others; and waged their postmodernist war against objective truth, particularly Judeo-Christian principles and Western civilization generally.

It’s all a trick. And there is no treat – well, at least not for you.

Ironically, like the restless gaggle of youth who have no other option, it is the GOP whose nominees are trick-or-treating sans costume. They are who and what they claim to be: protectors and promoters of the permanent things of faith, family, community, and country.

No wonder the other part of the Democrats’ “all trick, no treat” campaign strategy is their deceitful ads trying to garb these GOP candidates in threadbare falsehoods equally as outrageous as the “moderate” costumes they cloak themselves in.

In fact, ironically reverting to the garb of the 1970s gaggle of youths, these far-left Democrats wear costumes of black T-shirts, jeans, boots, and sundry other “blue-collar” garb to court working voters, of whom they have, at best, an abstract understanding. All the while they calumniate their Republican opponents and ignore how their own party’s failures have caused the very problems they decry.

As for answers, however, they do have them. But you won’t hear them until they have tricked their way back into office and treated themselves to the levers of power over your life.

Only then will these radical Democrats once more rip off their “moderate” Captain America masks and reveal that their radical plans were already put forward during their primaries, when they were being themselves and talking to their fellow Democrat extremists.

Keep reading

A Culture of Death

“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” — Voltaire (1694-1778)

A government that claims the authority to kill persons after they have been subdued, disarmed, tried, convicted and confined in prison has made a startling claim about the nature of political power. It claims not merely the authority to protect the innocent from violence, but the authority to inflict violence when no immediate threat exists.

It claims that the taking of human life, which it rightly condemns when committed by private individuals, somehow becomes morally permissible when committed by government agents. This is the fundamental contradiction of the death penalty: Government killing the helpless protects the living.

The Declaration of Independence offers a radically different understanding of government. All human beings possess natural rights, and governments are instituted to protect those rights. Government’s just powers derive solely from the consent of the governed. Government is not the owner of our lives. It is our creature, established to protect rights that precede its existence. Its authority is limited, and it cannot legitimately claim powers that the people whom it governs do not themselves possess.

Individuals possess a natural right to defend themselves against an unlawful attack. They may use necessary and proportionate force to repel an aggressor. Because the people possess that right, they can delegate it to the government, including to a military for defensive purposes. Government’s legitimate authority to wage defensive war is a moral and legal derivation of the people’s preexisting right of self-preservation.

But what right does an individual possess to kill a defeated enemy who has surrendered, is disarmed and locked in a jail cell? What right does a private person possess to execute a prisoner who no longer presents an immediate threat? None. The right of self-defense does not include the right to kill a helpless captive as retribution for a past offense.

And if the people do not possess that right, how can they delegate it to government? The principle is straightforward: Government cannot legitimately acquire, through the consent of the governed, a power that the governed themselves do not possess.

Confinement protects society. Execution reveals the state’s claim to omnipotence.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s plans to have a convicted defendant executed publicly and livestream the killing represent a particularly repulsive vision of state power. If implemented, such a spectacle would not demonstrate the strength of American civilization. It would advertise its moral depravity. It would turn the deliberate destruction of a human being into political entertainment, with the machinery of government serving as producer and promoter.

There is something profoundly disturbing about officials who would turn a human death into a public performance. What lesson would such a livestream teach? That the state is entitled to kill, that its violence deserves an audience, and that adults and children should watch with approval as the life of a powerless, wheelchair-bound prisoner is extinguished by military sharpshooters? That the proper response to wrongdoing is not the restraint of power but the celebration of its most lethal expression?

This is a cruel and unusual descent into barbarism, a glorification of government killing and an invitation to cultivate a culture of fear and death. Civilization advances when it restrains violence, even in response to terrible crimes. Barbarism advances when violence becomes an instrument of public spectacle and collective gratification.

Keep reading

“Very Intentional”: Steve Eisman Thinks Anthropic Is Hiding Something

Steve Eisman, the investor made famous by The Big Short for recognizing the subprime mortgage disaster before much of Wall Street, is now accusing Anthropic of deliberately withholding its latest quarterly financial statements from investors ahead of its potentially $2 trillion IPO.

Speaking Wednesday on Prof G Markets, Eisman questioned why Anthropic’s October 26 prospectus contained financial statements only through June, despite more recent information suggesting the company’s explosive growth may already be losing momentum, according to the podcast and Yahoo.

Asked whether he believed the omission was deliberate, Eisman answered: “Only very intentional.”

That’s a pretty serious allegation, particularly coming from somebody whose reputation was built on recognizing financial absurdities that the rest of Wall Street was perfectly content to ignore. And it dovetails almost perfectly with what I’ve been arguing about the AI bubble for months.

On September 29, I published It’s Official: The AI Emperor Has No Clothes, examining Anthropic’s extraordinary losses, its enormous infrastructure commitments, and the growing disconnect between the enthusiasm in AI equities and the warnings emerging from credit markets.

My argument then was that investors were beginning to get their first meaningful look at the financial machinery behind the AI boom, and what they were discovering wasn’t particularly encouraging.

Now Eisman is suggesting that even this picture may be considerably rosier than the company’s latest numbers would indicate.

According to Reuters figures discussed by Eisman, Anthropic’s quarterly revenue growth decelerated from 144% in the second quarter to 45% in the third. That’s still spectacular growth by ordinary standards, but for a company seeking a valuation approaching $2 trillion, a slowdown of that magnitude deserves considerably more scrutiny than it’s getting.

More concerning is the apparent deterioration in the economics of generating that revenue. Eisman says Anthropic produced $2.08 in revenue for every dollar spent on computing and infrastructure during the second quarter. In the third quarter, that figure dropped to $1.70, a decline of approximately 18%.

In other words, compute spending went from consuming roughly 48 cents of every revenue dollar to nearly 59 cents in just three months.

That’s not exactly the direction you’d hope to see from a company about to IPO, whose valuation depends on the assumption that scaling its technology will eventually produce extraordinary profitability.

Eisman believes part of the explanation is the fading of what he calls “tokenmaxing,” a period when businesses encouraged employees to consume enormous quantities of AI computing resources without worrying much about the bill.

Keep reading

Is There Any Way To Save Social Security, Or Is It Doomed?

The young do not think about getting old, and this is to the greatest benefit of governments which spend and inflate younger generations out of any future subsidies they might one day come to rely on. For most people in Gen Z, though, there is at least a tacit acknowledgment that they are paying into a system that might not be there for them when they retire. However, their only point of reference is usually the rantings of their socialist college professors or a mob of crazed activists on TikTok.

So, naturally, the only solution they can come up with is MORE power for government, more taxation, more communism and more redistribution of wealth. In other words, give more control and more cash over to the state which already misspent their money.

The idea of pillaging the wealth of others as a shortcut to security for a single generation is not new. This plan is doomed to fail, as it has failed in nearly every socialist system with a population larger than around 10 million people.

Even in “market-capitalist welfare states” that are often cited as “successful” like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the ability to continue retirement funding at a rate which provides a livable wage is only possible if the retiring population is much smaller than the working population.

Across the west at present, the larger Baby Boomer generation is aging completely out of the labor pool and these systems are being depleted rapidly. The demographic squeeze is tightening and in the US, those special Treasury securities are now being redeemed – Social Security is set to decline starting in 2034.

Current SS reserves are at $2.56 trillion. These reserve funds are being depleted every year by a spending deficit. The deficit is not fixed and fluctuates wildly, but the overall trend shows it is clearly growing. In 2025 the shortfall was $160 billion (that’s the amount of extra money the government has to tax or borrow in order to fully cover the costs of Social Security beyond normal revenues). That deficit is projected to rise to $393 billion by 2033.

As these reserves disappear due to deficits, eventually social security payments will be reduced as a consequence.

By the time I am old enough to collect, Social Security payments will be cut by 22% (accounting for steady inflation). By the time Gen Z is old enough to collect, their SS payments will shrink by 35% with inflation included. The fund does not necessarily implode but the benefits will becomes more and more useless over time.

At bottom, the fund will be dead because it will no longer be able to adapt to inflation. Costs will continue to rise and SS will shrink exponentially. Relying on the system for retirement would be impossible. This is also assuming there is not an economic crisis event in the future which completely derails government funding for SS much sooner.

This brings up a lot of questions…

Keep reading

Burma’s Junta Bombs Civilian Targets While Inviting Rebels to Peace Talks

Burma’s new defense minister, Lieutenant General Yar Pyae, claimed at an October event that the air force’s bombing campaign serves peace. At the same event, the junta renewed its invitation to ethnic armed groups to join peace talks and called on the People’s Defense Force (PDF), the armed wing of the opposition National Unity Government, to lay down its weapons.

Yar Pyae, who also chairs the junta’s National Solidarity and Peacemaking Negotiation Committee, spoke three weeks after a military airstrike on a market in Kyauktaw, Rakhine State, killed 50 people, according to aid workers and the Arakan Army (AA). During the weekend of the event, junta airstrikes killed at least 27 civilians across five states and regions.

The invitation followed an earlier peace initiative accompanied by continued bloodshed. After Min Aung Hlaing took the title of president in April 2026, the junta announced a “100-Day Peace Initiative,” running from April 21 to July 31, and invited ethnic armed groups to Naypyitaw for talks. The UN Special Rapporteur’s latest report found that about 753 civilians were killed nationwide during that period, with the military and allied militias responsible for 89 percent of those deaths.

Airstrikes allow the military to attack territory its ground troops cannot hold. In Rakhine, where the junta has lost 14 of 17 townships, the UN Human Rights Office found that the military relied primarily on air power to prevent the AA from advancing on Sittwe and Kyaukphyu. The AA has also overrun a major regional military headquarters since launching its offensive in November 2023, according to Agenzia Nova. ACLED senior analyst Su Mon said the junta’s September offensive to retake territory in Rakhine had produced no battlefield gains.

The UN Human Rights Office’s annual report to the Human Rights Council, covering June 2025 through May 2026, identified airstrikes as the leading cause of civilian deaths in Burma. Open sources recorded at least 2,592 air attacks during that period, a 17 percent increase over the previous year. Aerial attacks accounted for 845 of the 1,241 civilian deaths the office recorded.

The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP), a Burmese rights monitor cited by the UN office, counted at least 8,075 civilians killed by the military between the February 2021 coup and May 31, 2026, including 1,074 children. The office said military restrictions prevented verification of thousands more deaths.

Keep reading

‘Full spectrum intelligence’ will unify all signals to detect people, objects: WEF inaugural Annual Meeting of Global Future Leaders

With full spectrum intelligence, nothing will remain hidden; everyone and everything will be detectable anywhere: perspective

“Full spectrum intelligence” will one day unify all signals like WiFi, ultrasound, sonar, and X-rays and will be able to detect any person or object anywhere, according to a presentation at the World Economic Forum (WEF) inaugural Annual Meeting of Global Future Leaders in Dubai, UAE.

Giving a presentation at the WEF meeting on Wednesday called, “Sensing The Invisible,” the person who pioneered the technology that uses WiFi to see through walls, MIT Signal Kinetics Research Lab founding director and Cartesian Systems co-founder Dr. Fadel Adib explained how all signals will eventually come under one umbrella called “Full Spectrum Intelligence.”

With full spectrum intelligence, nothing will remain hidden. Everyone and everything will be detectable anywhere, from the deepest depths of the ocean to the far reaches of outerspace, and everywhere in between, including the biological signals beneath our skin.

“We think of WiFi as different than ultrasound. We think of sonar as different from cellular communication. But what research has shown over the past 15 years is that there’s a unifying theme under all of them, and it’s almost like a playbook that you could extract information from,” said Dr. Adib.

“So what is now happening is that the electromagnetic spectrum, which is like the wireless spectrum, is being populated […] What we’re going to start seeing is ‘full spectrum intelligence;’ intelligence that is able to extract meaning from all the signals that exist around you and be able to use them to deliver new capabilities.”

The applications for full spectrum intelligence are vast.

Wireless sensing can already aid in personalized healthcare by diving deep beneath the skin; it can help retail stores and warehouses find missing products; and it is being deployed to build “an internet of things to observe the underwater world” with the help of the “world’s first battery-free underwater camera.”

For law enforcement, full spectrum intelligence would be a godsend, especially when it’d come to vehicle searches and search warrants on private property.

Border patrols, port authorities, and customs and immigration agencies would love this.

And for the military, full spectrum intelligence would leave no person or installation, including what’s buried deep inside a facility, undetectable.

Going back 15 years, Dr. Adib’s research has been pivotal in making all of this possible.

Keep reading

Report: Dozens of Democrats Silent on Alaska Election Rigging While Calling GOP a ‘Threat to Democracy’

Dozens of leading Democrats — many of whom have railed for years about the GOP and the Trump administration as a “threat to democracy” — are universally silent when asked to respond to a cynical attempt to confuse Republican voters on Alaska’s senatorial ballot.

All were asked by Fox News about the subversive tactic of placing another candidate named Dan Sullivan against incumbent Sen Dan Sullivan (R-AK), which could potentially cost the U.S senator his seat.

The complete radio silence by Democrats was revealed in a report Saturday by the cable news outlet, which reached out to 42 leading Democratic lawmakers and governors who endorsed Sullivan’s opponent Mary Peltola, asking if they would denounce the alleged effort to confuse Alaska voters.

None of the 42 responded, Fox reported.

The New York Times reported earlier this week that that aides to candidate Peltola helped recruit the man named Dan Sullivan to run in an alleged effort to draw votes from the Republican incumbent.

Peltola’s campaign has denied any involvement.

The lack of responses presents a striking contrast to the incessant Democratic talking point of “threats to Democracy” levied against not only President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, but his administration and other Republican lawmakers and candidates as well.

Fox reported:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, for instance, stated that “voter suppression is poisonous, it is toxic to our democracy,” in 2022. His colleague, Sen. Chris Murphy, meanwhile, argued in April 2025 that “those of us who believe that the threat to democracy is urgent” need to “act like it.” And Sen. Cory Booker said in December 2016 that “protecting American democracy is a calling far higher than party politics.”

Neither responded to Fox’s query, according to the outlet.

Somewhat surprisingly, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), who has emerged as a maverick in his party on some issues, also remained mum on the controversy, Fox reported.

Last week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against Alaska election officials that seeks to delay the certification of the senate election results if incumbent Sullivan loses because votes cast for the decoy Dan Sullivan could have changed the outcome.

However, legal experts have told Fox news that the lawsuit faces serious challenges because it infers voter intent from anonymous ballots and threatens the sovereignty of states over their elections.

The Fox report contained a long list of everyone contacted.

Among the other most outspoken, but now silent, Democratic senators reached by Fox News Digital were Adam Schiff (D-CA), minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Elisa Slotkin (D-MI).

Among the more than a dozen House members reached by the outlet were Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), George Whitesides (D-CA), and Chris Pappas (D-NH), the latter of whom is also running for the Senate against New Hampshire incumbent John E. Sununu.

Fox also received no response from former senator Sherrod Brown who is trying to retake his senate seat against John Husted in Ohio.

Democratic governors contacted by Fox were Wes Moore of Maryland, Gavin Newsom of California, and Roy Cooper of North Carolina, the latter of whom is also running for the senate.

The Alaska Democrat candidate at the center of the controversy, Mary Peltola, also did not respond to Fox’s query.

Previously, only one Democrat had publicly condemned the alleged tactic in Alaska, according to Fox.

Iowa’s Democratic candidate for governor Rob Sand told Fox News last Sunday that “both parties are doing it and neither party should be doing it,” calling such efforts “manipulating the political system.”

Keep reading

Americans Have Lost Confidence in Congress Ahead of the 2026 Midterms

Americans are heading into the November 3 midterm elections with confidence in Congress at historic lows. A new Gallup poll found that only 14% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, the lowest approval rating recorded immediately before a midterm election since Gallup began tracking the measure in 1974. Only 15% of registered voters believe most members of Congress deserve reelection, while just 43% believe their own representative should remain in office. That is the lowest reading for support of one’s own representative in Gallup’s final pre-midterm surveys dating back to 1994. Americans have traditionally criticized Congress while maintaining a more favorable opinion of their own representatives. Now even that distinction is deteriorating. The dissatisfaction extends across party lines, with congressional approval at 29% among Republicans, 13% among independents, and only 4% among Democrats.

The economy remains central to this discontent. Gallup found that 38% of Americans identified an economic issue as the nation’s most important problem, including inflation, the general economy, and gasoline prices. Another 26% specifically cited government or poor leadership. These concerns are closely connected. Households are paying substantially more for food, insurance, housing, energy, and everyday necessities than before the pandemic. Politicians continually speak about inflation as though the problem disappears when the annual percentage declines. The average family does not experience the economy through a government statistical release. They see the price of groceries, their mortgage payment, the cost of automobile insurance, and whatever money remains after taxes. Slower inflation does not reverse years of lost purchasing power.

Housing affordability has become another major economic dividing line. Younger Americans who did not purchase property before the enormous increase in prices and mortgage rates face a completely different financial environment from those who already own homes. Families with accumulated assets can help their children with down payments or even purchase homes outright, while those dependent entirely upon wages struggle to enter the market. The result is an economy increasingly divided between those who own appreciating assets and those attempting to acquire them. Washington can celebrate economic growth and employment statistics, but those figures do not necessarily reflect the financial circumstances of ordinary households.

The national debt is another issue that cannot be separated from the broader loss of confidence in government. Washington continues financing substantial expenditures through borrowing while interest payments consume an increasing share of federal resources. Both political parties have contributed to the accumulation of debt over successive administrations. The consequences do not disappear when control of Congress changes. The federal government must continually refinance its obligations while funding entitlement programs, defense expenditures, and countless other commitments. Politicians debate how to distribute additional spending while rarely confronting the long-term financial consequences of the obligations they have already created.

Keep reading

Georgia Mayor Secretly Puts GPS Tracker on Police Chief’s Truck, ENTIRE Police Force Quits in Response

The mayor of the small town of Milner, Georgia, Craig Timmons, has admitted he secretly placed a GPS tracker on Police Chief Lamar Bunn’s city vehicle and set up a camera on private property aimed at City Hall after becoming concerned about work hours and timesheets.

The disclosure outraged the department, prompting Bunn and all five full-time officers to quit, with most of the reserve officers following, and City Manager Tausha Grose also stepping down.

Their resignations took effect on Wednesday, leaving the Lamar County Sheriff’s Office to cover law enforcement for the small town.

The city council later censured the mayor for not using proper channels and methods for his concerns. Members said Timmons should have first brought the issues to them as required by the city charter.

Timmons confirmed his actions to WSB-TV reporter Mark Winne, saying he bought the tracker with his own money and installed a camera at a car wash pointed at City Hall with the property owner’s approval.

Investigative reporter Mark Winne asked the mayor outright, “Did you place a tracking device on the police vehicle driven by the Milner police chief?”

“Yes sir, I did,” Timmons said.

Winne followed up, “Did you put a video camera out back of car wash pointed at the building where his office was?”

“Yes, City Hall, yes sir, and with approval from the property owner,” Timmons said.

The mayor said that his signature appears on the chief’s timesheets and that he believed there were problems with hours, stating, “The mayor’s position is not just shaking hands and kissing babies.”

Bunn told the council the tracker was placed without his knowledge or that of the council or city administrator and called it a violation of his rights.

Officers’ resignation letters cited a lack of trust, concerns about the mayor’s judgment and decision-making, and ethical issues.

Captain Craig Walton specifically called for an independent investigation into the mayor’s conduct.

Keep reading

Ofcom lists four age checks many adults may face to stay on social media

Ofcom, the United Kingdom’s communications regulator, on October 29 named four age-check methods it considers “highly effective” at proving a user is 16 or older. Ministers asked for the assessment to inform the regulations for their ban on under-16s using social media.

The four are photo ID matching, bank-based checks, digital ID services and facial age estimation, which The Register reports must be paired with a second check. Credit card, mobile operator and email checks, which Ofcom says work for confirming someone is 18 but not 16, did not make the list. A passport or driving licence is one route; the bank, digital ID and face checks are the others.

The practical effect falls on many adults, not only children, because a platform cannot know who is under 16 without checking. The Register reports that some adults may be spared where a platform can infer their age from past activity.

Dame Melanie Dawes, Ofcom’s chief executive, said the ban “can work if social media firms do highly effective age checks properly.” According to The Register’s report of the assessment, Ofcom concedes that “the risk of circumvention cannot be entirely eliminated.”

Big Brother Watch, the civil liberties group, answered the same day. Its director, Silkie Carlo, called the plan “a national ID system by the back door” and “an Orwellian assault on free speech and privacy,” and called instead for “parental controls that genuinely protect children.”

The ban rests on a new section 214A of the Online Safety Act 2023, inserted by the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026. Ministers intend to lay the regulations before the end of this year, and the ban is expected to start around spring 2027. The assessment was requested in June by the Technology Secretary, Liz Kendall.

Dawes is a career civil servant whom the Ofcom board appointed chief executive in February 2020.

Canada is on the same road. The Safe Social Media Act, Bill C-34, which would set a similar limit for children 16 and under, is at second reading in the House of Commons.

Keep reading