Tag: social media

Peak Modernity: People Are Taking Selfies With Dead Pope For Social Media Clicks

What could be more 2025 than thousands of people lining up to file past the open coffin of the dead Pope just in order to whip out a selfie stick and take some pics in order to get more likes?

Security guards at St. Peter’s Basilica where the Pope is lying in state are having to usher people away from taking smiling selfies.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

The Daily Mail reports “Official images of first day from the lying-in-state showed swarms of people surrounding the simple coffin holding their phones in the air above their heads.”

“A sea of screens was seen floating around the Pope’s body, and some even extended selfie sticks in a bid to capture the best shot,” the report adds.

Even nuns were getting in on the action.

They’re treating it like a photo op.

Keep reading

Von der Leyen’s paws are all over Ireland’s counter disinformation strategy

The government of Ireland’s 55 page counter disinformation strategy, available for free download here, is worth perusing to show how pervasive and thorough Von der Leyen’s emerging censorship web is. The first thing that critical readers might note is that there is no mention of Irish sources of disinformation, but that Russian sources of disinformation are mentioned five times.

In addition to that blatant show of Russophobia, its obsession with Moscow shows that this report is not only lop-sided, biased and partisan but that it comes up short in the empirical stakes as well. Though one might imagine that such a government funded report would give example after example of mis-information to bolster its case, that would be to mis-interpret its function, which is to put in place the censorship pillars on which not only Ireland but all of von der Leyen’s Europe will rest. Far better to close the angle, forget specific examples of mis-information and prattle on with catechisms of pseudo scientific cliches.

Thus, though there is no mention of the recurring patterns of NATO false flag operations that other SCF contributors frequently draw attention to, there are lists after lists of the pillars that must be legislated for to make not only Ireland but all of Europe safe again from the free flow of information.

The table of contents shows how the report is neatly divided into a number of sections to achieve von der Leyen’s aims. We first of all have an overview of the issue, explaining how Ireland is challenged by disinformation and how Ireland and Europe must respond, presumably by banning Russia Today, which I can now only get by using a VPN. Although an empirical or applied approach might devote a line or two to the mortal challenge Russia Today or SCF’s excellent Bruna Frascolla poses to us all, there is none of that. Instead, we must accept that Russia Today and Bruna Frascolla are coming for our jugulars and only von der Leyen and her Irish-based minions can save us from them, which is rather odd as I find the information to noise ratio much higher in them than I do in the Irish or British media.

So much for their silly overview. The next section spells out five principles through which counter-information will be fought. These essentially amount to the European Union agreeing on a narrative and that narrative being bolstered from the local level right up to von der Leyen herself. No matter whether it is Israeli war crimes in Gaza or NATO war crimes in Ukraine and Syria, all parties will spread the agreed narrative and gang up on those, who might suggest subversive counter-narratives regarding Hunter Biden’s lap top, von der Leyen’s Covid 19 vaccine profiteering and so on. Regarding Covid 19, the views of paid political and scientific hucksters will be accepted and those with alternative views will be punished on whatever pretext best suits the particular situation.

Although freedom of expression will be guaranteed, that freedom will not extend to those heretics, who question the prevailing narrative and who thereby put the entire clown show at risk. “Resilience and trust” in the powers that be will be drilled into the masses and the civil society networks they work though and “corporate accountability and regulatory enforcement” will further cement the narrative into our collective psyche. As in all quasi-military campaigns, there will be “cooperation, collaboration and coordination”, otherwise known as C3 or command, control and communications by the U.S. Military. Finally, there will be punishments as a matter of principle for dissenters and other heretics.

Keep reading

Black DJ and TikTok Influencer with Over a Million Followers Threatens to Stab White People in the Heart Like Karmelo Anthony Did

A black DJ and TikTok influencer with over a million followers has threatened to stab white people in the heart like Karmelo Anthony did to Austin Metcalf.

The shocking threat was posted by Patrick Jeanty Jr., who uses the TikTok handle “KingJeanty1989.”

In a viral video responding to the murder, Jeanty asserted he will also kill white people who “bully,” “harass,” or “approach” him.

“To all of the people who are against Karmelo Anthony, and me as a black man in America — white people I’m telling you, and I’m telling you now, you ever even think to approach me, bully me, harass me — think you gonna be with your twin brother or whatever and do anything to me, I too will pokey pokey poke you as well.”

“Straight to the heart,” Jeanty continued.

Keep reading

Kamala Harris mocked on social media for reported interest in creating an institute for policy and ideas

Social media commentators had a field day after a report that former Vice President Kamala Harris was considering starting a center for “policy and ideas.”

The New York Times released a piece on Thursday, headlined, “Sidelined and Still Processing Her Defeat, Harris Looks for a Way Back In.” The article observed how Harris and her husband are “weighing each new opportunity with the potential political blowback in mind” as they chart a course for the future.

“One possibility: establishing an institute for policy and ideas,” The Times reported. “Brian Nelson, an adviser to Ms. Harris since she was California’s attorney general, has broached the idea with several universities, including Howard and Stanford. But some allies have noted that raising money for such a center could, depending on the donors, create liabilities in future races.”

The notion that Harris’ next political move could involve starting a think tank — despite a presidential campaign often criticized for gaffes — resulted in many jokes on social media outlets like X.

Washington Free Beacon senior writer Andrew Stiles summarized the report as “NYT: Kamala Harris, known for her deep knowledge and ability to articulate complex issues, is thinking about launching ‘an institute for policy and ideas.'”

Keep reading

Congress Takes Another Step Toward Enabling Broad Internet Censorship

The House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday advanced the TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146) , a bill that seeks to speed up the removal of certain kinds of troubling online content. While the bill is meant to address a serious problem—the distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII)—the notice-and-takedown system it creates is an open invitation for powerful people to pressure websites into removing content they dislike. 

As we’ve written before, while protecting victims of these heinous privacy invasions is a legitimate goal, good intentions alone are not enough to make good policy. 

This bill mandates a notice-and-takedown system that threatens free expression, user privacy, and due process, without meaningfully addressing the problem it claims to solve. The “takedown” provision applies to a much broader category of content—potentially any images involving intimate or sexual content at all—than the narrower NCII definitions found elsewhere in the bill. The bill contains no protections against frivolous or bad-faith takedown requests. Lawful content—including satire, journalism, and political speech—could be wrongly censored. 

The legislation’s 48-hour takedown deadline means that online service providers, particularly smaller ones, will have to comply quickly to avoid legal risks. That time crunch will make it impossible for services to verify the content is in fact NCII. Instead, services will rely on automated filters—infamously blunt tools that frequently flag legal content, from fair-use commentary to news reporting.

Keep reading

Leftist KTLA Scrambles for Cover After Posting “N-Word” on Social Media — Claims It Was a “Technical Error”

KTLA, widely regarded as a mouthpiece for the California Democrat Party, is under fire after a shocking racial slur was posted to its official account on X.

The Los Angeles-based outlet is now scrambling to save face, claiming the shocking post was nothing more than a “technical error.”

The now-deleted post, which included the full “N-word,” was live on KTLA’s X account long enough to spark immediate backlash.

KTLA quickly attempted to downplay the incident, blaming a so-called “technical error” related to a language filter gone wrong.

According to the carefully curated PR statement, the station claimed: “KTLA experienced a technical error while adding language filters to our social media accounts, resulting in an offensive word being accidentally shared. We are appalled and apologize that this occurred.”

Keep reading

BitChute Discontinues Video-Sharing Service for UK Residents Over Online Censorship Laws

BitChute, a platform widely recognized for its commitment to free expression and open discourse, has officially withdrawn its services from the United Kingdom, citing untenable regulatory conditions under the UK’s recently enacted censorship law, the Online Safety Act. The move comes in direct response to regulator Ofcom’s newly enhanced authority, which enables the communications regulator to levy fines as high as 10% of a company’s global revenue if deemed non-compliant with the Act’s sweeping censorship demands.

This shift in regulatory climate marks what some view as a profound erosion of digital freedoms in the UK. BitChute’s decision could serve as the first signal of a broader exodus, with other international platforms potentially following suit to avoid the heavy-handed oversight now codified in British law.

In a detailed public statement posted to its website, BitChute explained the rationale behind the drastic step:

“After careful review and ongoing evaluation of the regulatory landscape in the United Kingdom, we regret to inform you that BitChute will be discontinuing its video-sharing service for UK residents.”

The platform highlighted the unpredictable and burdensome nature of the new legal framework, emphasizing the Act’s expansive mandates on content moderation and the discretionary powers it grants Ofcom to enforce them. BitChute warned that these provisions create an environment of legal ambiguity, placing platforms at the mercy of vague standards and severe penalties.

“The BitChute platform has always operated on principles of freedom of speech, expression and association…However, the evolving regulatory pressures—including strict enforcement mechanisms and potential liabilities—have created an operational landscape in which continuing to serve the UK market exposes our company to unacceptable legal and compliance risks.”

The company has implemented immediate restrictions: UK residents can still upload content to the platform, but none of their videos will be accessible to other UK-based users. Their content will remain viewable to users in other countries, who can interact with it as usual.

“The significant change will be that this UK user-posted content will not be viewable by any other UK user, but will be visible to other users outside of the UK.”

This effectively means that while UK-based creators are not entirely barred from participation, their voices are now digitally cordoned off from fellow citizens, a result of legal constraints rather than technical ones.

Keep reading

Florida’s New Social Media Bill Says the Quiet Part Out Loud and Demands an Encryption Backdoor

At least Florida’s SB 868/HB 743, “Social Media Use By Minors” bill isn’t beating around the bush when it states that it would require “social media platforms to provide a mechanism to decrypt end-to-end encryption when law enforcement obtains a subpoena.” Usually these sorts of sweeping mandates are hidden behind smoke and mirrors, but this time it’s out in the open: Florida wants a backdoor into any end-to-end encrypted social media platforms that allow accounts for minors. This would likely lead to companies not offering end-to-end encryption to minors at all, making them less safe online.

Encryption is the best tool we have to protect our communication online. It’s just as important for young people as it is for everyone else, and the idea that Florida can “protect” minors by making them less safe is dangerous and dumb.

The bill is not only privacy-invasive, it’s also asking for the impossible. As breaches like Salt Typhoon demonstrate, you cannot provide a backdoor for just the “good guys,” and you certainly cannot do so for just a subset of users under a specific age. After all, minors are likely speaking to their parents and other family members and friends, and they deserve the same sorts of privacy for those conversations as anyone else. Whether social media companies provide “a mechanism to decrypt end-to-end encryption” or choose not to provide end-to-end encryption to minors at all, there’s no way that doesn’t harm the privacy of everyone.

If this all sounds familiar, that’s because we saw a similar attempt from an Attorney General in Nevada last year. Then, like now, the reasoning is that law enforcement needs access to these messages during criminal investigations. But this doesn’t hold true in practice.

In our amicus brief in Nevada, we point out that there are solid arguments that “content oblivious” investigation methods—like user reporting— are “considered more useful than monitoring the contents of users’ communications when it comes to detecting nearly every kind of online abuse.” That remains just as true in Florida today.

Law enforcement can and does already conduct plenty of investigations involving encrypted messages, and even with end-to-end encryption, law enforcement can potentially access the contents of most messages on the sender or receiver’s devices, particularly when they have access to the physical device. The bill also includes measures prohibiting minors from accessing any sort of ephemeral messaging features, like view once options or disappearing messages. But even with those features, users can still report messages or save them. Targeting specific features does nothing to protect the security of minors, but it would potentially harm the privacy of everyone.

Keep reading

Sen. Hawley Considers Criminal Referral for Zuckerberg — Demands Testimony Under Oath After Whistleblower Exposes Meta’s Dangerous Collusion with Communist China

The globalist empire of Big Tech is being dragged into the light, and U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) is leading the charge.

In a scathing letter sent Thursday, Hawley invited Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, following explosive testimony from a former Meta executive turned whistleblower.

Sarah Wynn-Williams, who served as Facebook’s Director of Global Public Policy from 2011 to 2017, delivered a bombshell under oath: Meta didn’t just sell out American users — it surrendered to the Chinese Communist Party.

In her riveting testimony, Wynn-Williams exposed Meta’s secret project—code-named “Project Aldrin”—an initiative that allegedly handed China’s Communist regime access to sensitive U.S. artificial intelligence technologies.

Her most alarming claim? That Meta executives deliberately briefed Chinese officials on cutting-edge AI to give Beijing the upper hand over American companies.

“These briefings focused on critical emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence – explicit goal being to help China outcompete American companies,” said Wynn-Williams.

She warned that Meta’s LLaMA AI model is already being used by China in military applications and stated that the only reason the CCP doesn’t currently have unrestricted access to U.S. user data is because Congress intervened.

This is no longer just about privacy—it’s about national survival in the face of an aggressive foreign adversary, aided and abetted by America’s own Big Tech titans.

Keep reading

No, Democrats, Trump Didn’t Kill Drug Research — Here’s What Actually Happened at the NIH

Democrats are up in arms, accusing President Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) of gutting drug research funding.

Social media is flooded with dramatic claims—photos of sick children, stories of desperate patients—each suggesting that Trump has cut off their last hope. The truth, however, is far less dramatic.

The Trump administration has indeed pushed aggressive cost-cutting across federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which funds a large share of America’s drug research. But contrary to the headlines, there’s no blanket halt on medical research—far from it.

Studies continue under other federal programs and through robust private funding, supporting everything from cancer breakthroughs to rare disease therapies.

What the administration has done is implement targeted policies—like capping overhead costs and temporarily pausing some grant reviews—that have caused confusion, delays, and loud complaints from researchers and critics, but they haven’t shut down research altogether.

Here’s the real story: In February 2025, the NIH proposed capping “indirect costs”—expenses like lab maintenance and utilities—at 15%, down from the usual 27–30%.

That move would cut about $4 billion annually from the $9 billion typically allocated for such costs within the NIH’s $35 billion grant budget (based on 2023 figures, adjusted slightly for 2025).

Universities and hospitals quickly sounded the alarm, warning of layoffs and stalled projects. Then, on March 5, 2025, a federal judge in Boston issued a nationwide injunction, blocking the cuts after 22 Democratic-led states and research groups filed suit, citing bipartisan legislation that protects NIH funding.

As of April 3, the proposed cap remains tied up in court—no reductions have taken effect.

Meanwhile, shortly after Trump’s inauguration, the NIH temporarily froze most grant-review meetings, stalling roughly $1.5 billion in new research funding (Nature, February 2025).

This wasn’t a budget cut—it was a bureaucratic slowdown triggered by new oversight protocols.

Keep reading