Tag: social media

Teen dies just 3 hours after being ‘sextorted’ as nefarious international groups like 764 target US kids: ‘It’s 100% murder’

The afternoon that 15-year-old Bryce Tate was sextorted started off as a perfectly normal Thursday.

The Cross Lanes, WV, sophomore came home from the gym on November 6, scarfed down a plate of tacos prepared by his mom, then went outside to shoot hoops. At 4:37 p.m., he received a text message from a strange number.

Three hours later, Bryce was found in his dad’s man cave — dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

“They say it’s suicide, but in my book it is 100% murder,” Bryce’s father, Adam Tate, told The Post. “They’re godless demons, in my opinion. Just cowards, awful individuals, worse than criminals.”

According to his dad, Bryce was apparently the latest victim of a vicious sextortion scheme targeting teen boys — one that law enforcement says is surging.

A representative for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children told The Post the group tracked over 33,000 reports of child sextortion in 2024 alone — with nearly that number reported in the first six months of this year.

Online scammers scour public social media profiles to learn about a teen, then pose as a flirtatious peer.

“They acted like a local 17-year-old girl. They knew which gym he worked out at, they knew a couple of his best friends and name-dropped them. They knew he played basketball for Nitro High School,” Adam said. “They built his trust to where he believed that this was truly somebody in this area.”

The Post is told that the photos Bryce received were not AI-generated but most likely of a real girl who was another victim.

Scammers then ask for illicit photos in return and, once they have them, extort the victim for money by threatening to show the pics to family and friends.

For Bryce, that sum was $500.

“My son had 30 freaking dollars and he’s like, ‘Sir, I’ll give you my last $30.’ And these cowards wouldn’t take it,” a tearful Adam told The Post, recounting his son’s final exchange. 

Keep reading

‘Fourth Reich’: Musk Strikes Back At EU ‘Tyrants’ After X Fine

Elon Musk is not taking the outrageous fine from Brussels bureaucrats lying down, lashing out at EU officialdom for taking on Nazi characteristics and oppressing their own citizens’ best interests…

As Catherine Salgado reports for PJMedia.com, Musk also re-shared a post about Irish teacher Enoch Burke, who was jailed for refusing to use transgender pronouns, and later replied to another user, “So many politicians in Europe who are traitors to their own people.”

And Musk highlighted the fact that Meta has a verification program similar to X’s, yet the EU hasn’t onerously fined the more censorship-prone Meta.

Musk reposted and reiterated his previous explanation of why he bought X (then Twitter) in the first place.

“I didn’t do the Twitter purchase because I thought it was a great way to make money. I knew that there would be a zillion slings and arrows coming in my direction.

It really felt like, there was a civilizational danger that unless one of the major online platforms broke ranks, then, because they’re all just behaving in lockstep along with the legacy media.

Literally there was no place to actually get the truth. It was almost impossible. So everything was just getting censored. The power of the censorship apparatus was incredible,” Musk said.

The EU seems to be borrowing ideas from 20th century Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler… 

Keep reading

German Chancellor Merz Filed Hundreds of Criminal Complaints over Insults From Citizens: Report

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has reportedly filed hundreds of criminal complaints against members of the public for insulting him during his tenure as a politician.

According to research conducted by the Welt am Sonntag newspaper, Merz is “one of the most sensitive politicians in the history” of the German republic.

Die Welt’s Sunday paper reported that during his time as a member of parliament, Merz filed criminal complaints against citizens for calling him names such as “little Nazi”, “asshole,” and “filthy drunk”, among others.

The paper said that documents from a law firm commissioned by Merz to file such complaints revealed that the “little Nazi” and “filthy drunken” comments resulted in police searches, with the later ultimately being found to have been an unlawful search.

In the “little Nazi” case, police seized the phone of an elderly and physically disabled woman, who is bound to a wheelchair. The paper noted that by doing so, police hindered her ability to communicate with her doctors.

In total, Welt reported that there were 4,999 individual cases collected by the law firm.

Merz is said to have partnered with the internet monitoring agency ‘So Done:’, a firm founded by a former Free Democrat politician Alex Brockmeier. The agency is said to monitor social media sites for so-called hate speech free of charge for political figures in Germany in exchange for recouping 50 per cent of any fines levied against members of the public.

Given Germany’s strict rules against insulting politicians, it is not always necessary for the individual politician to file a criminal complaint.

Indeed, one such case in which a commenter called Merz an “asshole”, was launched by the Berlin prosecutor’s office after being tipped off by the group “Hesse Against Hate”, a project launched by the local interior ministry in the state of Hesse. The case is currently being investigated as a potential “extremist” politically motivated crime.

Keep reading

Newsom’s Press Office Posts Vulgar Photo of Governor to Troll the New York Post – But It Immediately Backfires

This is the Democrats’ 2028 front-runner.

Gavin Newsom’s office posted a vulgar photo of the California Governor to troll the New York Post and it immediately backfired.

The New York Post hilariously savaged Gavin Newsom’s “odd ‘testicle-crushing’ sitting pose.”

“The internet had a ball Thursday mocking California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s weirdly tense “testicle-crushing” style of cross-legged sitting at a speaking engagement,” The New York Post reported.

“The 58-year-old pol was discussing National Guard policies at the New York Times Dealbook Summit when he struck a pose that made him the butt of a joke on social media,” the outlet said.

Newsom’s official press office responded with a vulgar and (allegedly) photoshopped picture of Newsom.

“Democracy requires flexibility,” Newsom’s office said in the caption.

Keep reading

EU targets platforms that refuse to censor free speech – Telegram founder

The EU is unfairly targeting social media platforms that allow dissenting or critical speech, Telegram founder Pavel Durov has said.

He was responding to a 2024 post by Elon Musk, the owner of X, who claimed that the European Commission had offered the platform a secret deal to avoid fines in return for censoring certain statements. The EU fined X €120 million ($140 million) the day before.

According to Durov, the EU imposes strict and unrealistic rules on tech companies as a way to punish those that do not comply with quiet censorship demands.

“The EU imposes impossible rules so it can punish tech firms that refuse to silently censor free speech,” Durov wrote on X on Saturday.

He also referred to his detention in France last year, which he called politically motivated. He claimed that during that time, the head of France’s DGSE asked him to “ban conservative voices in Romania” ahead of an election, an allegation French officials denied. He also said intelligence agents offered help with his case if Telegram quietly removed channels tied to Moldova’s election.

Durov repeated both claims in his recent post, describing the case as “a baseless criminal investigation” followed by pressure to censor speech in Romania and Moldova.

Keep reading

US accuses EU of ‘attack on American people’ after fine on X

The US has accused Brussels of an “attack” on Americans after the EU fined Elon Musk’s social media platform X €120 million ($140 million) for violating the bloc’s content-moderation rules.

The European Commission announced the decision on Friday, noting that it is the first time a formal non-compliance ruling has been issued under the Digital Services Act.

The move comes amid a broader wave of enforcement against major American tech companies. Brussels previously imposed multibillion-euro penalties on Google for abuses in search and advertising, fined Apple under both the Digital Markets Act and national antitrust rules, and penalized Meta for its “pay-or-consent” ad model. Such actions have sharpened disagreements between the US and the EU over digital regulation.

According to the Commission, X’s violations include the deceptive design of its blue checkmark system, which “exposes users to scams,” insufficient transparency in its advertising library, and its failure to provide required access to public data for researchers.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio slammed the decision, writing on X that it is not just an attack on the platform, but “an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments.” 

Keep reading

US Under Secretary Warns Britain That the First Amendment Isn’t Negotiable

This week, Sarah Rogers, the US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, touched down in the UK not to sip tea or admire the Crown Jewels, but to deliver a message as subtle as a boot in the face: stop trying to censor Americans in America.

Yes, really.

According to Rogers, the UK’s speech regulator, Ofcom, the bureaucratic enforcer behind Britain’s censorship law, the Online Safety Act (OSA), has been getting ideas. Dangerous ones. Like attempting to extend its censorship regime outside the United Kingdom and onto American soil. You know, that country across the ocean where the First Amendment exists and people can still say controversial things without a court summons landing on their doormat.

To GB News, Rogers called this attempt at international thought-policing “a deal-breaker,” “a non-starter,” and “a red line.”

In State Department speak, that is basically the equivalent of someone slamming the brakes, looking Britain in the eye, and saying, “You try that again, and there will be consequences.”

To understand how Britain got itself into this mess, you have to understand the Online Safety Act. It is a law that reads like it was drafted by a committee of alarmed Victorian schoolteachers who just discovered the internet.

The OSA is supposedly designed to “protect children online,” which sounds noble until you realize it means criminalizing large swaths of adult speech, forcing platforms to delete legal content, and requiring identity and age checks that would make a KGB officer blush.

It even threatens prosecution over “psychological harm.” And now, apparently, it wants to enforce all of that in other countries too.

Rogers was not impressed, saying Ofcom has tried to impose the OSA extraterritorially and attempted to censor Americans in America. That, she made clear, is outrageous.

It’s more than a diplomatic spat. Rogers made it painfully clear the US isn’t going to just write a sternly worded letter and move on. There is legislative retaliation on the table.

The GRANITE Act, Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny & Extortion, is more than a clever acronym. It is the legislative middle finger Washington can consider if the UK keeps pretending it can veto American free speech from 3,500 miles away.

The bill, already circulating in the Wyoming state legislature, would strip foreign governments of their usual protections from lawsuits in the US if they try to censor American citizens or companies.

In other words, if Ofcom wants to slap US platforms with foreign censorship rules, they had better be ready to defend themselves in an American courtroom where “freedom of expression” isn’t a slogan, it is a constitutional right.

Rogers confirmed that the US legislature will likely consider that and will certainly consider other options if the British government doesn’t back down.

Of course, the GRANITE Act didn’t come out of nowhere. Rogers’s warning didn’t either. It is a response to the increasingly unhinged state of free speech in the UK, where adults can be arrested for memes, priests investigated for praying silently, and grandmothers interrogated for criticizing gender ideology.

“When you don’t rigorously defend that right, even when it’s inconvenient, even when the speech is offensive,” Rogers said, “you end up in these absurd scenarios where you have comedians arrested for tweets.”

This is the modern UK, where “hate speech” has been stretched to include everything from telling jokes to sharing news stories about immigration. And now, under the OSA, that censorious spirit has gone global.

Keep reading

Goodbye Jury Trials, Hello Digital ID: 10 “recommendations” from the Crime and Justice Commission

The Times Crime and Justice Commission was established last year, with its mission statement being to…

consider the future of policing and the criminal justice system, in the light of the knife crime crisis, a shoplifting epidemic, the growing threat of cybercrime, concerns about the culture of the police, court backlogs, problems with legal aid and overflowing prisons.

And today is that long-promised glorious golden day where they reveal their findings. The white smoke has gone up and we get to witness the result of their long hours of toil.

How are we going to fix everything?

Let’s take a look at the complete list, with some helpful annotations:

1. Introduce a universal digital ID system to drive down fraud, tackle illegal immigration and reduce identity theft;

Digital ID for everybody! It’s going to solve every problem! We’ve talked this to death, it was always going to be in here.

2. Target persistent offenders and crime hotspots using data to clamp down on shoplifting, robbery and antisocial behaviour;

That’s about surveillance. “Data” means your private data which they will get from social media companies.

3. Roll out live facial recognition and other artificial intelligence tools to drive the efficiency and effectiveness of the police;

Again, FRT was always going to feature. I’m not sure what “other artificial intelligence tools” means, but the vagueness is likely the point. “Efficiency” is the word doing the heavy-lifting in that sentence, intended to capture the pro-MAGA, pro-Musk UK crowd.

4. Create a licence to practise for the police, with revalidation every five years to improve culture and enhance professionalism;

That’s just throwing something out for the “other side”. So far it’s all just more powers for the police and courts, this adds some faux accountability framework into the mix to make it look fair.

5. Set up victim care hubs backed by a unified digital case file to create a seamless source of information and advice;

Same as above, with some extra seasoning for the digital identity sales pitch thrown in.

6. Introduce a new intermediate court with a judge and two magistrates to speed up justice and reduce court delays;

This is about replacing trial by jury, and that’s all it’s about. It’s something they’ve been wanting to do for years and keep making excuses to try.

7. Move to a “common sense” approach to sentencing with greater transparency about jail time, incentives for rehabilitation and expanded use of house arrest;

Not sure what this means in real terms, but any use “common sense” in this kind of document should always raise an eyebrow. As should the idea of “expanded use of house arrest”.

8. Give more autonomy and accountability to prison governors with a greater focus on rehabilitation and create a College of Prison and Probation Officers;

No idea what this means yet. Could be about more prison-based work programs (a la private prisons in the US), could just be fluff between important parts.

9. Restrict social media for under-16s to protect children from criminals and extreme violent or sexual content;

Again, very predictable. And, again, very dishonest. As we’ve said a thousand times, “restricting social media to under-16s” – in practical terms – means everyone on social media has to verify their age. So bye-bye online anonymity.

Keep reading

Australia: Meta begins deactivating accounts ahead of 16-year-old minimum social media age limit

Meta has begun removing social media accounts belonging to Australian children under 16 years old from its platforms, Instagram, Facebook and Threads.

The tech giant has started notifying users aged 13 to 15 years old that their accounts would cease to exist on December 4th. Starting December 10th, social media companies will face fines up to A$49.5 million ($33million USD) should they fail to take steps to halt children under 16 years old from owning accounts.

Australian eSafety Commissioners will send major platforms notices on December 11th demanding statistics about exactly how many accounts were removed from their sites. Additionally, monthly notices are planned for 2026.

It is estimated that 150,000 Facebook accounts and 325,000 Instagram users will be terminated. 

“The government recognizes that age assurance may require several days or weeks to complete fairly and accurately,” Communications Minister Anika Wells reported.

“However, if eSafety identifies systemic breaches of the law, the platforms will face fines,” she added.

Google sent out a notice on Wednesday stating that anyone in Australia under 16 would be signed out of YouTube on December 10th and will lose features accessible available only to account holders, such as playlists.

Google states it determines YouTube users’ ages “based on personal data contained in associated Google accounts and other signals.”

“We have consistently said this rushed legislation misunderstands our platform, the way young Australians use it and, most importantly, it does not fulfill its promise to make kids safer online,” a Google statement reported.

Users over 16 years old who were wrongfully revoked account access have the option to verify their age through government-issued ID or a Video selfie, per Meta.

Platforms such as X and Reddit contacted underage users, suggesting that they download their posted pictures and freeze their accounts until they become of age.

The Australian government claims the ban will protect children from the harms of social media. However, critics say this decision may isolate certain groups who depend on the platforms for connection and push children to other, potentially more harmful corners of the internet.

Keep reading

As Expected, a Hearing on Kids Online Safety Becomes a Blueprint for Digital ID

The latest congressional hearing on “protecting children online” opened as you would expect: the same characters, the same script, a few new buzzwords, and a familiar moral panic to which the answer is mass surveillance and censorship.

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade had convened to discuss a set of draft bills packaged as the “Kids Online Safety Package.” The name alone sounded like a software update against civil liberties.

The hearing was called “Legislative Solutions to Protect Children and Teens Online.” Everyone on the dais seemed eager to prove they were on the side of the kids, which meant, as usual, promising to make the internet less free for everyone else.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), who chaired the hearing, kicked things off by assuring everyone that the proposed bills were “mindful of the Constitution’s protections for free speech.”

He then reminded the audience that “laws with good intentions have been struck down for violating the First Amendment” and added, with all the solemnity of a man about to make that same mistake again, that “a law that gets struck down in court does not protect a child.”

They know these bills are legally risky, but they’re going to do it anyway.

Bilirakis’s point was echoed later by House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY), who claimed the bills had been “curated to withstand constitutional challenges.” That word, curated, was doing a lot of work.

Guthrie went on to insist that “age verification is needed…even before logging in” to trigger privacy protections under COPPA 2.0.

The irony of requiring people to surrender their private information in order to be protected from privacy violations was lost in the shuffle.

Keep reading