Blog

Facebook Verified: Meta Now Wants a Video Selfie of Your Face

Meta is rolling out a badge on Facebook that requires users to record a video of their own face.

The feature, massively accelerating the normalization of face scanning and biometric data collection, is called Facebook Verified, and asks a user to record a short video selfie, which the company checks against the photos already on their profile to confirm a match.

The process is free and takes a few minutes.

The company, which has been aggressively lobbying for “age verification” digital ID laws, presents the badge as a way to confirm a real person is behind an account. “As AI makes it easier to generate content, profiles, and messages,” it said, it wants users “to know there is a real person on the other side of a profile.”

The badge is open to Facebook users who are 18 or older and in good standing with Meta’s Community Standards on fraud, scams, and deceptive practices, and who show “no evidence of inauthentic behavior.” It is not available for Pages or ProMode accounts, which limits it to personal profiles.

Once a user completes the one-time check, the badge appears on Marketplace, Dating, Groups, and Profile. Meta said it plans to extend it to Feed posts over time.

Facebook Verified is separate from Meta Verified, the company’s paid subscription, which bundles a badge with impersonation protection and account support. Facebook Verified charges no fee.

Meta has not said how long it keeps the selfie video, where it stores it, or when it deletes it.

The launch materials describe the match and say nothing about the video afterward.

The scan arrives the same month Google added a selfie-video sign-in that records a user’s face to recover a locked account. Age-check laws in several US states and in Britain already require a face or an ID scan to open some accounts.

Meta is now asking hundreds of millions of Facebook users for a face scan too.

Facebook Verified is rolling out in phases, starting in select markets, and Meta plans to expand it worldwide.

Keep reading

Google’s €890m EU Fine and the Wrong Fight in Washington

Today the European Commission fined Google €890 million for breaking the Digital Markets Act, the law the bloc wrote to pry open its largest online platforms.

€460 million was for self-preferencing in search: the Commission concluded that Google had given its own shopping, hotel, and travel results the prominent placement and the richer display that rival services could not get.

The other €430 million was for the rules Google Play imposes on the developers who sell through it, rules that kept them from telling their own customers about cheaper offers available elsewhere while charging a steering fee above what the law allows.

The Commission ordered Google to stop and to rank outside services on the same terms as its own.

The reaction from Washington arrived before the fine did. Days earlier, twenty-five Republican members of Congress, seven of them on the House trade subcommittee and one its chairman, wrote to President Trump urging him to treat European enforcement as an act of aggression against American business, a tool, they said, of “economic extraction and regulatory coercion.”

They asked him to reach for Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the statute that lets Washington answer unfair practices with tariffs, and reminded the bloc that “the EU’s access to the U.S. market is not guaranteed.”

The lawmakers also caught the Commission in an awkward inconsistency: Apple, Meta, and Amazon wear the gatekeeper label that pulls them under the law, while the Chinese marketplaces Temu and AliExpress, which reach just as far into European pockets, so far don’t.

The timing sharpened the suspicion, the fine landing hours before a batch of the President’s global tariffs was due to expire. Between the inconsistency and the timing, the charge of persecution has something under it. And yet the conduct Europe fined is the conduct American courts have already condemned, in cases brought by an American company, tried before American judges and an American jury, with no connection to Brussels.

Apple spent the past two years losing to Epic Games in a federal courtroom in California. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found that the company had willfully violated her 2021 order forbidding it to stop developers from steering customers to cheaper payment options outside the App Store. She threw out the commission Apple had tried to charge on those outside sales and referred the matter to federal prosecutors for possible criminal contempt. “That it thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation,” she wrote; “the cover-up made it worse.” Fortnite was back in the American App Store within days.

Google lost the same fight on the same ground when a California jury decided in December 2023 that the Play Store and its billing system formed an illegal monopoly, and in July 2025 the Ninth Circuit upheld both the verdict and the order that came with it; Google must let rival app stores operate, permit alternative billing, and stop paying companies to keep out of app distribution. Epic’s chief executive called it a total victory. Anti-steering in the App Store, self-preferencing and a closed till in the Play Store; take the European postmark off the charges and they are the same ones a jury in San Francisco already returned.

In May the Supreme Court refused to pause Judge Gonzalez Rogers’s order but in June it agreed to hear Apple’s appeal of the contempt finding, so the question of how far Apple defied the order is still open.

What isn’t open, and what the appeal does not reach, is the 2021 injunction against blocking steering, or the jury’s monopoly verdict against Google that the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The core findings stand. American law looked at what these companies do and called it unlawful; the only live dispute is over how thoroughly Apple flouted the remedy.

Keep reading

Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton Admits Democrats Have No Real Plans for Americans Other Than Being Anti-Trump

Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Seth Moulton had a rare moment of clarity during an appearance on MSNOW earlier this week.

Moulton admitted that his party has no real plan for immigration, or inflation, and most importantly that all they do have is being anti-Trump.

This is the problem that Democrats have had for years now. Trump can do or say anything and you know instantly, that the Democrats will be against it if he is for it.

FOX News reports:

Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., acknowledged Tuesday on MS NOW’s “Money, Power, Politics” that Democrats have failed to give voters a clear immigration plan and rely too heavily on opposition to President Donald Trump, as he discussed the party’s challenges in Arizona’s gubernatorial primary.

“We don’t have a plan for immigration. We’re not able to say what, actually, Democrats should do to fix the problem,” Moulton said. “All we are is opposition to Trump.”

The Massachusetts congressman and U.S. Senate candidate said he had tested voters’ understanding of the party’s position during town halls across his state.

“I’ll ask people, ‘How many of you are opposed to Trump’s immigration enforcement?’ Every hand in the room goes up,” Moulton said, adding, “Like, I’ve asked thousands of people in Massachusetts this question.”

The congressman also faulted Democrats for dismissing other voter concerns, including inflation, during former President Joe Biden’s administration.

“Under Biden, we said inflation is not really a big deal. It’s transitory. It’s going to go away,” Moulton said. “The point is we have this history of kind of just like washing over problems and not addressing real concerns that voters have.”

Keep reading

Connecticut’s Hidden Carbon Tax Is About To Get More Expensive

Connecticut residents know their electric bills are packed with government costs. The public benefits charge is printed directly on the bill, where customers can see it.

RGGI is harder to spot.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative — pronounced “Reggie” — is a multistate carbon-pricing program covering large fossil-fuel power plants. Connecticut and 10 other states limit the number of tons of carbon dioxide that power generators may emit and auction allowances, each permitting one ton of emissions.

Power plants must buy enough allowances to cover their emissions. As the states reduce the number available, the price tends to rise. Power generators pay for the allowances and build those costs into the price of electricity.

There is no separate “RGGI charge” on the bill. The cost is buried in the price of electricity.

Now the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) wants to tighten the program again, beginning in 2027. Connecticut residents have until Aug. 3 to comment.

Keep reading

US-Israel Defense Integration on Horizon as House Keeps Section 219 in NDAA

The House is preparing to vote on the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with Section 219 (formerly section 224) still embedded in the roughly $1.1 trillion bill.

The House approved the rule governing debate on H.R. 8800 by a 214-211 vote Tuesday, July 21. The vote allowed the chamber to proceed with the NDAA but excluded the amendment from Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) that would have removed Section 219.

Lawmakers will not receive a separate vote on the bipartisan amendment that sought to remove the section, a proposal to expand U.S.-Israel defense technology cooperation that has garnered strong rebukes in certain political and defense circles.

The House expects to hold a recorded vote on the complete NDAA on Wednesday.

What Section 219 Would Do

Section 219 would direct the defense secretary to designate a Pentagon “executive agent” to oversee the United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative. That official would coordinate bilateral defense research, development, testing, evaluation and industrial cooperation.

The proposal originated as the bipartisan, bicameral United States-Israel FUTURES Act, introduced in the House by Reps. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) and Don Davis (D-N.C.) with companion legislation from Sens. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).

Jackson framed the proposal as a way to preserve America’s technological advantage and deliver new battlefield capabilities to service members. Davis emphasized its potential to prepare troops for evolving threats, particularly unmanned systems and electronic warfare.

Sens. Budd and Gillibrand have similarly presented the initiative as an expansion of existing work on missile defense, drones, and underground threats as a means to strengthen American military and technological capabilities.

Keep reading

House panel subpoenas 3 left-wing groups in probe of $39M tied to Marxist tycoon Neville Singham

The powerful House Ways and Means Committee has subpoenaed three left-wing nonprofits in an investigation into more than $39 million that flowed from Marxist tech tycoon Neville Roy Singham to the groups, Fox News Digital has learned.

In three letters dated July 21 and obtained by Fox News Digital, the committee accused the three nonprofits of failing to turn over a “single responsive document” to earlier requests for information.

The committee, led by Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., issued the subpoenas to the People’s Forum Inc., a New York-based activist hub; BreakThrough News, a left-wing nonprofit media outlet; and Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, which says its work is anchored in “national liberation Marxism.”

The legislative action emerges as far-left nonprofits face growing scrutiny from law enforcement agencies, policymakers and federal agencies for their alleged roles in promoting communist propaganda, engaging in money laundering schemes and fomenting discord and even political violence. Last week, Secretary of State Rubio convened a summit of 65 nations to counter “far-left terrorism.

On Monday, the State Department released a 100-page report on a network of U.S. organizations that allegedly promote propaganda for the communist regime in Cuba.

The panel said it is investigating whether existing laws governing tax-exempt organizations adequately protect against foreign influence — and whether Congress needs to change those laws. The letters cite a five-part Fox News Digital investigation published in March that exposed the flow of $285 million from Singham into a sprawling international network of nonprofits, activist groups and media operations.

“Your responses have failed to include a single responsive document and misrepresented both the scope and purpose of the Committee’s oversight,” the nearly identical letters state. “Accordingly, the Committee is invoking compulsory process to obtain the requested materials.”

Keep reading

Elderly Michigan Widow in Trailer Shocked to Learn She’s a ‘Mega-Donor’ to Dems – ‘Gave’ $150K via ActBlue Over 5 Years While Living on Modest Pension

An 88-year-old widow living in a trailer in rural Michigan has been listed as funneling over $150,000 to Democrat causes through ActBlue.

Nearly 15,000 separate donations averaging eight per day, every single day, for five years, Michigan Enjoyer first reported.

The latest allegations come as ActBlue continues to face intense scrutiny from congressional investigators and federal authorities over its donor verification practices and allegations of potentially fraudulent contributions.

According to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Charlie LeDuff, 88-year-old Elizabeth Waffle was stunned after learning Federal Election Commission records attribute 14,696 separate donations totaling nearly $150,000 to her name over the past five years.

The records indicate she averaged roughly eight donations every single day during that period, including 47 donations to Democrat U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed over the last two years.

She admitted making a few small, legitimate donations as a “true believer” in liberal causes, including some to El-Sayed. But 47 donations to him alone over two years? The avalanche of $150K total? Impossible. Some were tied to old addresses. Others went to candidates she’d never heard of.

Waffle told LeDuff she had no knowledge of the donations.

Keep reading

There Are No Ag ‘Jobs Americans Won’t Do’ If They Earn A Living Wage

henever Republicans talk about immigration enforcement, amnesty supporters chant the same tired line: What about picking crops? What about meat processing? Those are necessary jobs that Americans simply refuse to do.

That argument was used to justify dozens of House Republicans’ latest mass amnesty effort. Their proposal would give illegal alien agriculture workers a pathway to legal status through the H-2A program, even though they have broken multiple laws by being in the United States illegally and getting a job without a work permit. Their employer has also violated the law by hiring these illegals.

The bill — which covers everything from harvesting crops, to raising livestock, to processing agricultural products — is a workaround to avoid Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from standing in the way of low-cost labor for agriculture operations.

“With the border now secure, it is time to address these shortcomings and provide fair and legal pathways for all of agriculture to obtain workers when they are unable to find U.S. citizens willing to perform these noble but arduous tasks,” a letter from bill author Rep. Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, states.

This trope has been pushed for a long time. President George W. Bush parroted it in 2006, stating, “There are people in our country doing work that Americans will not do, and those people ought to be given a chance to have a tamper-proof card that enables them to work in our country legally.”

Democrats do it too, always taking the opportunity to signal some kind of American fragility for not wanting to do “backbreaking” work. They also want to import as many illegals into the country as possible, by any means necessary.

The reality is that these companies, and the lobbies that support them like the Farm Bureau, are only interested in a consistent flow of foreign illegal labor because this allows them to pay subsistence wages. They know, in other words, that Americans expect more from employers because they want to be able to have a family and raise children in their own country, and subsistence wages kill that possibility.

“At the same time as compensation deteriorated dramatically, the share of meatpackers who are immigrants has increased enormously… [A]ny suggestion that native-born Americans are not interested in this type of work cannot be taken seriously given the huge decline in average hourly wages for these jobs,” a journalist and Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) researcher wrote in a 2009 report. “[T]here is no question that the jobs paid a great deal more a generation ago when the vast majority of workers were native-born. There is also no question that as the foreign born share of this workforce has increased, wages have fallen significantly. The desirability of any job is heavily dependent on compensation.”

For illegal aliens, low wages are sufficient. They often live on the farms where they work, and a large portion of their earnings go back to their home countries as remittances (which are barely taxed), and go a lot further because of the lower cost of living. They also are willing to put many more people in a rental property than Americans will, in worse living conditions.

Some “American” farms are actually owned by foreign companies, or are forced to contract with them because of the pseudo-monopoly that exists in much of the agriculture industry.

The Trump administration has highlighted that the “big four” beef production companies currently control 85 percent of the market, noting that two of them are foreign. They act as a “cartel” and “mounting evidence shows this monopoly power has slashed payments to ranchers, reduced herd sizes, driven up consumer prices, and threatened America’s food supply chain.”

Keep reading

‘Three-Way Collision’: How Genes, Mold and Vaccines Might Lead to Autism

Take a genetically susceptible child, expose that child to mold, and then add an immune trigger — like a vaccine — that “tips an already-strained system over the edge,” and you may create a “three-way collision” that can lead to autism, according to Dr. Christian Bogner.

Bogner, a physician and researcher, and other experts told The Defender that environmental triggers have become more prevalent in recent decades, with the expansion of the childhood immunization schedule and the widespread use of toxic pesticides, including glyphosate, to produce food.

Many blame toxic exposures for the drastic increase in autism diagnoses among U.S. children, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention measured at 1 in 31 children in 2022 — up from 1 in 10,000 in the 1970s.

Physician and author Dr. Neil Nathan believes there is “clearly a relationship” between one of those toxic exposures — mold toxicity — and autism, though studies attempting to identify a link have so far been few and inconclusive.

“It’s hard enough to get any studies done on toxic mold that get into the mainstream narrative — to say nothing of the vaccine issue,” said Dr. Margaret Christensen, a trained gynecologist, clinical educator and co-founder of the Carpathia Collaborative.

According to Christensen, exposure to toxic mold “affects everybody … as it is such a common environmental toxin.” She noted that at least half of homes and 60% of commercial buildings “have had sufficient water damage to have a toxic mold issue as a component to common environmental exposures, creating illnesses.”

Bogner said that each child has different levels of susceptibility when exposed to toxins. Even within the same household, two children exposed to the same toxins may have different outcomes — one may become very ill or develop autism while the other may remain healthy.

But there’s at least one common denominator among the sick children he’s treated: an imbalance in the gut.

“Triggers vary — some children were pushed by vaccines, some by mold, some by antibiotics, some by none of those — but every autistic child I have evaluated has dysbiosis,” Bogner said. These children “carry specific bacterial overgrowths” that lead to toxicity in the gut and the potential onset of neurological disorders.

Keep reading

Harris 2028 White House bid ‘not going to happen’: Former Biden aide

A former Biden administration aide said Tuesday he doesn’t believe former Vice President Kamala Harris would have much of a chance at winning the White House in 2028 if she runs again.

During an interview on Fox News’s “America Reports,” Michael LaRosa, former first lady Jill Biden’s press secretary, told host Gillian Turner that voters “are not going to give Kamala Harris a third at-bat.”

The conversation started because of a New York Magazine article, which identified Harris as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028. 

Minyon Moore, a Democratic strategist, said to the outlet, “She’s been listening to the American people and really trying to figure out what’s impacting them and how she can be of service to them.”

LaRosa pushed back on this directly, arguing that Harris has decades of political experience and needs to instead “start leading.” He added that voters want a new presidential candidate.

“She follows. She doesn’t take risks. She calculates. She doesn’t answer questions, she equivocates. She’s got to get over that if she wants to make a connection with people, but I don’t think she’s going to get a third at-bat,” LaRosa said.

LaRosa offered his own choices that meet his qualifications when asked by Turner. 

“I want somebody who can run the country. I want somebody who is competent. I love Rahm Emanuel, Gavin Newsom. I like Pete Buttigieg,” he said.

Newsom has not committed to running, saying on CBS News’s “Face the Nation” earlier this year that he needs to make the choice with his family.

LaRosa, currently a communications strategist, said his preferred 2028 candidates are not limited to those three but that he wishes for a candidate who will lead rather than follow the wave.

Harris’s office did not respond immediately to a request for comment from The Hill regarding LaRosa’s remarks.

Keep reading