Tag: nanny state

YouTube says it will comply with Australia’s teen social media ban

Google’s YouTube shared a “disappointing update” to millions of Australian users and content creators on Wednesday, saying it will comply with a world-first teen social media ban by locking out users aged under 16 from their accounts within days.

The decision ends a stand-off between the internet giant and the Australian government which initially exempted YouTube from the age restriction, citing its use for educational purposes. Google (GOOGL.O) had said it was getting legal advice about how to respond to being included.

“Viewers must now be 16 or older to sign into YouTube,” the company said in a statement.

“This is a disappointing update to share. This law will not fulfill its promise to make kids safer online and will, in fact, make Australian kids less safe on YouTube.”

The Australian ban is being closely watched by other jurisdictions considering similar age-based measures, setting up a potential global precedent for how the mostly U.S. tech giants behind the biggest platforms balance child safety with access to digital services.

The Australian government says the measure responds to mounting evidence that platforms are failing to do enough to protect children from harmful content.

Keep reading

Congress Goes Parental on Social Media and Your Privacy

Washington has finally found a monster big enough for bipartisan unity: the attention economy. In a moment of rare cross-aisle cooperation, lawmakers have introduced two censorship-heavy bills and a tax scheme under the banner of the UnAnxious Generation package.

The name, borrowed from Jonathan Haidt’s pop-psychology hit The Anxious Generation, reveals the obvious pitch: Congress will save America’s children from Silicon Valley through online regulation and speech controls.

Representative Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts, who has built a career out of publicly scolding tech companies, says he’s going “directly at their jugular.”

The plan: tie legal immunity to content “moderation,” tax the ad money, and make sure kids can’t get near an app without producing an “Age Signal.” If that sounds like a euphemism for surveillance, that’s because it is.

The first bill, the Deepfake Liability Act, revises Section 230, the sacred shield that lets platforms host your political rants, memes, and conspiracy reels without getting sued for them.

Under the new proposal, that immunity becomes conditional on a vague “duty of care” to prevent deepfake porn, cyberstalking, and “digital forgeries.”

TIME’s report doesn’t define that last term, which could be a problem since it sounds like anything from fake celebrity videos to an unflattering AI meme of your senator. If “digital forgery” turns out to include parody or satire, every political cartoonist might suddenly need a lawyer on speed dial.

Auchincloss insists the goal is accountability, not censorship. “If a company knows it’ll be liable for deepfake porn, cyberstalking, or AI-created content, that becomes a board-level problem,” he says. In other words, a law designed to make executives sweat.

But with AI-generated content specifically excluded from Section 230 protections, the bill effectively redefines the internet’s liability protections.

Keep reading

Missouri Locks the Web Behind a “Harmful” Content ID Check

Starting November 30, 2025, people in Missouri will find the digital world reshaped: anyone wishing to visit websites containing “harmful” adult material will need to prove they are at least 18 years old by showing ID.

This new requirement marks Missouri’s entry into the growing group of US states adopting age verification laws for online content. Yet the move does more than restrict access; it raises serious questions about how much personal data people must surrender just to browse freely.

For many, that tradeoff is likely to make privacy tools like VPNs a near necessity rather than a choice.

The law defines its targets broadly. Any site or app where over one-third of the material is classified as “harmful to minors” must block entry until users confirm their age.

Those who do not comply risk penalties that can reach $10,000 a day, with violations categorized as “unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful practices.”

To meet these standards, companies are permitted to check age through digital ID systems, government-issued documents such as driver’s licenses or passports, or existing transactional data that proves a person’s age.

Keep reading

Children removed from Australian-British couple living off-grid in Italian forest

The children of an Australian mother living off-grid in an Italian forest have been removed by local authorities, after the family came under scrutiny when they were hospitalised due to eating poisonous mushrooms.

A juvenile court in the Italian city of L’Aquila ruled last week to place the three children of Australian woman Catherine Birmingham and her British husband Nathan Trevallion into protective care.

The court cited poor sanitary conditions at the family’s home in the mountainous Abruzzo region and unauthorised homeschooling of their eight-year-old daughter and six-year-old twin boys, according to AFP.

Ms Birmingham, a life coach and former horse riding teacher from Melbourne, bought the farmhouse in 2021 with Mr Trevallion, a former chef from Bristol.

They were raising the children in the woodlands home without mains electricity, water or gas, relying instead on solar power, well water and homegrown food.

“The members of the Trevallion family have no social interactions, no steady income,” the court said in its written ruling.

Keep reading

Texas: ID Will Be Linked to Every Google Search! New Law Requires Age Verification

Texas SB2420, known as the App Store Accountability Act, requires app stores to verify the age of users and obtain parental consent for those under 18. This law aims to enhance protections for minors using mobile applications and is set to take effect on January 1, 2026.

Texas has joined a multi-state crusade to enforce digital identification in America—marketed as a way to “protect children.”

Yet privacy experts say the real goal isn’t child protection—it’s control. 

Roblox insists its new “age estimation” system improves safety, but it relies on biometric and government data—creating the foundation for permanent digital tracking. With Texas now the fifth state to join the campaign, one question remains: how long before “protecting kids” becomes the excuse to monitor everyone?

From Reclaim the Net:

Texas Sues Roblox Over Child Safety Failures, Joining Multi-State Push for Digital ID

Texas has become the latest state to take legal action against Roblox, joining a growing number of attorneys general who accuse the gaming platform of failing to protect children.

The case also renews attention on the broader push for online age verification, a move that would lead to widespread digital ID requirements.

Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the lawsuit on November 6, alleging that Roblox allowed predators to exploit children while misleading families about safety protections.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

Keep reading

MAHA: Monitoring Americans’ Health Attributes — or CCP-style Digital Control Grid?

This summer, President Donald Trump unveiled a sweeping plan to “bring healthcare into the digital age.” He calls it the “Digital Health Tech Ecosystem.” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. also announced the launch of a digital health ID initiative in conjunction with Amazon, Apple, Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic. The latter is an AI startup that received most of its $580 million seed funding from the now-bankrupt FTX under convicted fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried.

This “Ecosystem” is part of the artificial intelligence (AI) venture Stargate Project, which Trump excitedly announced on his first day in office. Stargate is the reason you may have noticed large AI facilities springing up across the country, driving up energy prices with their unprecedented demand for electricity, and threatening aquifers with their unprecedented demand for water.

Trump declared Texas-based Stargate to be a $500 billion collaboration between leading tech companies that will make the United States the global leader in AI. Among investors are OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Oracle chairman Larry Ellison. During the White House unveiling, Ellison bragged that Stargate’s AI would be able to produce cancer vaccines in 48 hours.

Microsoft and NVIDIA are two other U.S.-based investors, while Emirati state-owned MGX of Abu Dhabi and U.K.-based Arm Holdings, Inc. are also involved. Stargate’s chairman is Japanese billionaire Masayoshi Son, who also chairs Stargate investor SoftBank.

Data Not Secure

Naturally, the healthcare component of this technological boom is supposed to help the little guy: improving patient care through earlier disease detection and — you guessed it — vaccinations. But are we to believe that this international consortium of businesses has our best interests at heart?

For that matter, do our own politicians? During testimony before Congress earlier this year, Kennedy admitted: “My vision is that every American is wearing a wearable [health-related monitor] within four years.” But he dodged a follow-up question about plans to secure that personal health data. That’s disconcerting, considering the vulnerability of personal information in federal hands. Remember the early 2025 reveal that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency gained illicit access to 19 sensitive U.S. Health and Human Services databases, exposing everything from electronic health records to Social Security and bank details? 

Wearables

The “wearable” health monitors would expand that data collection astronomically, creating a “digital twin” of yourself as government officials harvest vital signs, movement and sleep patterns, and other physical metrics in real time.

Moreover, Trump signed an executive order in March calling for data-sharing of personal information about Americans across federal agencies. His administration has since awarded more than $900 million in contracts to Peter Thiel’s data analytics company, Palantir, while even current and former employees have petitioned the company to pull out of the plans.

The HopeGirl Alternative News channel on Rumble depicts what healthcare in this modern Fourth Industrial Revolution will look like. Healthcare 4.0 works with a constant stream of data from wearable devices to analyze us — individually and population-wide — at every hour of the day in all settings. This system is already in operation. Starting in 2020, U.S. hospitals implemented “body area networks” (BAN) to deliver real-time vitals to the Pentagon’s Project Salus during the Covid “public health emergency.”

The REAL ID Connection

This helps explain why U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem finally enforced the REAL ID Act of 2005 this year. (Right now, it’s mandatory for domestic air travel and entering federal buildings, but the legislation allows for unlimited expansion of REAL ID requirements.) Until this year, various states stymied REAL ID, correctly labeling it a gross violation of Americans’ constitutionally protected rights. Now, the U.S. Transportation Security Administration boasts on its website about its biometric overhaul.

Indeed, the REAL ID Act allows states to collect biometric data (fingerprints, facial geometry, triangulated body measurements) on each of us. The Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom (CCHF) explains that the “purposes could include banking, employment or health care.”

CCHF warns: “REAL ID provides the digital and biometric infrastructure to implement a China-like control grid, where your access to services could depend on behavior, beliefs or health status.”

Keep reading

Asian nation introduces lifetime smoking ban for Gen Z and beyond

The Republic of Maldives has banned smoking for individuals born on or after January 1, 2007, becoming the second country in the world after New Zealand to implement a generational prohibition on tobacco. 

According to Maldives Health Statistics, tobacco consumption and exposure to secondhand smoke are among the leading causes of illness and death nationwide. This prompted President Mohamed Muizzu to launch an anti-smoking campaign last year, banning vapes and e-cigarettes while doubling import duties and taxes on cigarettes.

The new ban, affecting Generation Z first, was ratified as an amendment to the Tobacco Control Act in May and came into force on Saturday. It also reportedly applies to visitors to the island nation known for its luxury tourism.

Anyone born after January 1, 2007 is now prohibited from purchasing, selling, or using tobacco products in the Maldives. The restriction covers all forms of tobacco, and retailers must verify buyers’ ages. 

Keep reading

California Opens Public Comment on Online Age Verification ID

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has launched the preliminary phase of rulemaking for Senate Bill 976, the “Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act.”

The legislation mandates that social media companies use “age assurance” systems to determine whether a California user is an adult or a minor.

The Attorney General has until January 1, 2027, to complete and adopt the final regulations.

The California Department of Justice (DOJ) will host a public meeting on November 5, 2025, to gather feedback from residents, experts, and organizations about how these rules should be structured.

The DOJ is seeking public comment on the potential effects of the proposed regulations.

Citizens can send their comments in written form to sb976@doj.ca.gov. Note that any information provided is subject to the Public Records Act. 

SB 976 was introduced to limit the impact of addictive online design features on minors. It requires the Attorney General to create standards for age assurance and parental consent that align with the Act’s stated purpose of child protection.

However, privacy advocates have raised alarms that the “age assurance” requirement could erode online anonymity, forcing individuals to hand over sensitive identification data to access social platforms.

Such systems could expose Californians to new risks of data collection, profiling, and potential misuse of personal information.

Keep reading

Consumer Protection Laws: Unconstitutional Controls That Hurt the Very People They Claim to Help

From rent caps to “price-gouging” laws, a new wave of so-called consumer-protection laws is sweeping state capitols. These measures are marketed as compassion in a crisis — or “fairness” in housing — but their substance is the same: command-and-control price fixing that violates the Constitution, tramples private-property rights, and sabotages the free market’s ability to allocate goods and services when people need them most.

Three recent bills illustrate the trend. Alabama’s House Bill 528 (HB528) and Virginia’s House Bill 1301 (HB1301) expand anti-gouging controls to more transactions and longer periods after emergencies. New Jersey’s Assembly Bill 3361 (A3361) imposes rent control on manufactured-home sites. Nebraska’s Legislative Bill 266 (LB266), however, is a rare bright spot, preempting local rent control and affirming property rights. Together, these bills spotlight the central question: Will states defend a constitutional, republican system rooted in liberty and voluntary exchange, or drift toward administrative despotism under the banner of “consumer protection”?

Protecting Property and Contract Rights

America’s Founders understood what modern lawmakers too often forget: Price controls are a form of compelled exchange that violates liberty. The U.S. Constitution safeguards that liberty in multiple places:

  • Fifth Amendment: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Price ceilings that force owners to sell below market value are regulatory takings in substance, if not in name.
  • Article I, Section 10: “No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” When a legislature dictates the permissible price, term, or escalation of a private lease or service, it impairs the parties’ agreed-upon obligations.
  • Ninth and 10th Amendments: The people retain unenumerated rights, and powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. These clauses limit government; they do not license it to control every transaction.
  • 14th Amendment (due process and equal protection): Arbitrary economic edicts that single out owners for special burdens invite due-process and equal-protection concerns.

Consumer-protection statutes also collide with first principles. The Declaration of Independence identifies unalienable rights — life, liberty, and property — and charges government to secure them. Free exchange is a peaceful exercise of those rights, and upholds one’s pursuit of happiness. Substituting bureaucratic fiat for voluntary exchange undermines the moral basis of self-government.

Keep reading

FDA’s War on Commonsense Nicotine Regulation

Nicotine pouches—small, smokeless packets tucked under the lip—deliver nicotine without burning tobacco. They eliminate the tar, carbon monoxide, and carcinogens that make cigarettes so deadly. The logic of harm reduction couldn’t be clearer: if smokers can get nicotine without smoke, millions of lives could be saved.

Sweden has already proven the point. Through widespread use of snus and nicotine pouches, the country has cut daily smoking to about 5 percent, the lowest rate in Europe. Lung-cancer deaths are less than half the continental average. This “Swedish Experience” shows that when adults are given safer options, they switch voluntarily—no prohibition required.

In the United States, however, the FDA’s tobacco division has turned this logic on its head. Since Congress gave it sweeping authority in 2009, the agency has demanded that every new product undergo a Premarket Tobacco Product Application, or PMTA, proving it is “appropriate for the protection of public health.” That sounds reasonable until you see how the process works.

Manufacturers must spend millions on speculative modeling about how their products might affect every segment of society—smokers, nonsmokers, youth, and future generations—before they can even reach the market. Unsurprisingly, almost all PMTAs have been denied or shelved. Reduced-risk products sit in limbo while Marlboros and Newports remain untouched.

Only this January did the agency relent slightly, authorizing 20 ZYN nicotine-pouch products made by Swedish Match, now owned by Philip Morris. The FDA admitted the obvious: “The data show that these specific products are appropriate for the protection of public health.” The toxic-chemical levels were far lower than in cigarettes, and adult smokers were more likely to switch than teens were to start.

The decision should have been a turning point. Instead, it exposed the double standard. Other pouch makers—especially smaller firms from Sweden and the US, such as NOAT—remain locked out of the legal market even when their products meet the same technical standards. 

The FDA’s inaction has created a black market dominated by unregulated imports, many from China. According to my own research, roughly 85 percent of pouches now sold in convenience stores are technically illegal.

Keep reading