Tag: social media

Senior FBI Official Describes ‘Surreal’ Call Where Kash Patel Dictated Social Media Strategy Right After Kirk Assassination

In the immediate aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination in September, FBI Director Kash Patel prioritized social media strategy over the bureau’s response to the killing, according to a senior FBI official.

On Thursday, The New York Times published accounts of Patel’s tenure from 45 people who either currently work at the FBI or left during President Donald Trump’s second term.

“Beginning with Trump’s selection of Patel, our sources narrated the events that most troubled them over the last year,” the Times stated. “Many details of what we learned are reported here for the first time.”

Kirk, the conservative activist and founder of TPUSA, was shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10. In an unusual move for an FBI director, Patel traveled to the crime scene that day. Previously, it had been reported that Patel refused to get off the FBI plane in Provo until he was given a medium-sized raid jacket. In its report on Thursday, the Times cited an anonymous “senior executive” in the bureau who described a conference call on the day of the killing.

The official said Patel prioritized social media strategy over next steps in the investigation:

Whenever there’s a critical incident, one of the first things that happens is a conference call with everybody — all the executives, most of the field offices dial in. The director rarely speaks, because someone with situational awareness is leading the call. They’ll say: Here’s what happened. Here’s what we know. Here’s what we need. But we get on, and it’s just Kash berating the special agent in charge in Salt Lake. He’s super emotional.

And then it turns surreal. He and [then-Deputy Director Dan] Bongino start talking about their Twitter strategy. And Kash is like: I’m gonna tweet this. Salt Lake, you tweet that. Dan, you come in with this. Then I’ll come back with this. They’re literally scripting out their social media, not talking about how we’re going to respond or resources or the situation. He’s screaming that he wants to put stuff out, but it’s not even vetted yet. It’s not even accurate.

When I was an agent, I did hundreds of these cases. The initial information that comes in is always wrong. There’s too much coming in, and it takes time to vet. And it was obvious that Kash can’t understand that and doesn’t want to understand that.

Everyone on the call is just like: This guy is completely out of control. On another call, he said: When a crisis happens, the only thing you need to do is call me. The most important thing in any crisis is controlling the narrative. I was like: No, no, no. We actually have to do some work here. We’re going to have to investigate, to solve this.

Hours after Kirk’s assassination, Patel posted on X that the shooter was in custody, but later said the person had been released. The next day, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson turned himself in to authorities.

Keep reading

Rand Paul Turns Against Section 230, Citing YouTube Video Accusing Him of Taking Money From Maduro

Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) has long been one of the few refreshing voices out of Washington, D.C., when it comes to free speech, including free speech on social media and elsewhere in the digital realm. He was one of just two senators to vote against FOSTA, the law that started the trend of trying to carve out Section 230 exceptions for every bad thing.

As readers of this newsletter know, Section 230 has been fundamental to the development and flourishing of free speech online.

Now, Paul has changed his mind about it. “I will pursue legislation toward” ending Section 230’s protections for tech companies, the Kentucky Republican wrote in the New York Post this week.

A Section 230 Refresher

For those who need a refresher (if not, skip to the next section): Section 230 of the Communications Act protects tech companies and their users from frivolous lawsuits and spurious charges. It says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” If someone else is speaking (or posting), they—not you or Instagram or Reddit or YouTube or any other entity—are legally liable for that speech.

Politicians, state attorneys general, and people looking to make money off tech companies that they blame for their troubles hate Section 230. It stops the latter—including all sorts of ambulance-chasing lawyers—from getting big payouts from tech companies over speech for which these companies merely served as an unwitting conduit. It stops attorneys general from making good on big, splashy lawsuits framed around fighting the latest moral panic. And it prevents politicians from being more in control of what we all can say online.

If a politician doesn’t like something that someone has posted about them on the internet, doesn’t like their Google search results, or resents the fact that people can speak freely—and sometimes falsely—about political issues, it would be a lot easier to censor whatever it is that’s irking them in a world without Section 230. They could simply go to a tech platform hosting that speech and threaten a lawsuit if it was not removed.

Tech platforms might very well win many such lawsuits on First Amendment grounds, if they had the resources to fight them and chose that route. But it would be a lot easier, in many cases, for them to simply give in and do politicians’ bidding, rather than fight a protracted lawsuit. Section 230 gives them the impetus to resist and ensures that any suits that go forward will likely be over quickly, in their favor.

But here’s the key: Section 230 does not stop authorities from punishing companies for violations of federal law, and it does not stop anyone from going after the speakers of any illegal content. If someone posts a true threat on Facebook, they can still be hauled in for questioning about it. If someone uses Google ads to commit fraud, they’re not magically exempted from punishment for that fraud. And if someone posts a defamatory rant about you on X, you can still sue them for that rant.

Keep reading

Congress Revives Kids Off Social Media Act, a “Child Safety” Bill Poised to Expand Online Digital ID Checks

Congress is once again positioning itself as the protector of children online, reviving the Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA) in a new round of hearings on technology and youth.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Introduced by Senators Ted Cruz and Brian Schatz, the bill surfaced again during a Senate Commerce Committee session examining the effects of screen time and social media on mental health.

Cruz warned that a “phone-based childhood” has left many kids “lost in the virtual world,” pointing to studies linking heavy screen use to anxiety, depression, and social isolation.

KOSMA’s key provisions would ban social media accounts for anyone under 13 and restrict recommendation algorithms for teens aged 13 to 17.

Pushers of the plan say it would “empower parents” and “hold Big Tech accountable,” but in reality, it shifts control away from families and toward corporate compliance systems.

The bill’s structure leaves companies legally responsible for determining users’ ages, even though it does not directly require age verification.

The legal wording is crucial. KOSMA compels platforms to delete accounts if they have “actual knowledge” or what can be “fairly implied” as knowledge that a user is under 13.

That open-ended standard puts enormous pressure on companies to avoid errors.

The most predictable outcome is a move toward mandatory age verification systems, where users must confirm their age or identity to access social platforms. In effect, KOSMA would link access to everyday online life to a form of digital ID.

That system would not only affect children. It would reach everyone. To prove compliance, companies could require users to submit documents such as driver’s licenses, facial scans, or other biometric data.

The infrastructure needed to verify ages at scale looks almost identical to the infrastructure needed for national digital identity systems. Once built, those systems rarely stay limited to a single use. A measure framed as protecting kids could easily become the foundation for a broader identity-based internet.

Keep reading

Discord Expands Age Verification ID System to More Regions

Discord is pressing forward with government ID checks for users in new regions, even after a major customer-support breach in October 2025 exposed sensitive identity documents belonging to tens of thousands of people.

The expansion of its age-verification system reflects growing pressure under the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act, a law that effectively compels platforms to collect and process personal identification data in order to comply with its censorship and content-control mandates.

The October 2025 incident highlighted exactly why such measures alarm privacy advocates.

Around 70,000 Discord users had images of government-issued IDs leaked after attackers gained access to a third-party customer service system tied to the company.

The hackers claim to have extracted as much as 1.6 terabytes of information, including 8.4 million support tickets and over 100 gigabytes of transcripts.

Discord disputed the scale but admits the breach stemmed from a compromised contractor account within its outsourced Zendesk environment, not its own internal systems.

Despite the exposure, Discord continues to expand mandatory age-verification. The company’s new “privacy-forward age assurance” program is now required for all UK and Australian users beginning December 9, 2025.

Users must verify that they are over 18 to unblur “sensitive content,” disable message-request filters, or enter age-restricted channels.

Verification occurs through the third-party vendors k-ID and, in some UK cases, Persona, which process either a government ID scan or a facial-analysis selfie to confirm age.

Keep reading

Germany’s Censorship Frontier And The Rise Of Digital Control

Some achieve notoriety and fame by chance. Fortune may fall into one person’s lap, another may experience his ten minutes of public shine through a fluke rhetorical spark. In the case of the Minister‑President of Schleswig‑Holstein in Germany, however, this is a dubious honor.

In his appearance on Markus Lanz’s show on Germany’s state TV “ZDF”, CDU politician Daniel Günther slid into that revealing tone of small talk to which people are prone precisely when they believe themselves in a supposedly safe social environment – a place where no criticism is expected, no matter what leaves their lips.

What emerged during his guest spot on Lanz was a condemnable attitude toward the principle of free speech and toward critical media: the threat of censorship up to and including the blocking of individual platforms, including the portal Nius, reveals a profound ethical collapse. A growing, subtly operating apparatus of repression is now reaching us – a warning we should take seriously.

It was almost comical how Lanz, styled by public‑broadcasting elites as a star moderator, in tandem with the state‑aligned media sector repeatedly sought in the aftermath to rhetorically downplay Günther’s clearly articulated desire for censorship. Decontextualize, diffuse, and smother the real scandal with new waves of outrage like the Greenland debate – that’s how the media repair operation works.

Keep reading

Miami Beach police chief defends detectives’ visit to activist over Facebook post about mayor

Miami Beach Police Chief Wayne Jones issued a statement Friday explaining why detectives visited the home of a local political activist earlier this week following a social media comment about Mayor Steven Meiner.

“Given the real, ongoing national and international concerns surrounding antisemitic attacks and recent rhetoric that has led to violence against political figures,” Jones wrote that he “directed two of his detectives to initiate a brief, voluntary conversation regarding certain inflammatory, potentially inciteful false remarks made by a resident to ensure there was no immediate threat to the elected official or the broader community that might emerge as a result of the post.”

He went on to write that “the interaction was handled professionally and at no time did the mayor or any other official direct me to take action.”

The statement comes after Raquel Pacheco, a Miami Beach political activist and veteran who previously ran for city commission and a Democratic state Senate candidate, said Miami Beach detectives arrived at her home.

“He said, ‘We are here to talk to you about a Facebook comment’ and I said – ‘What? Is this really happening?” Pacheco told Local 10 News.

Pacheco had commented on a Facebook post by Meiner, who is Jewish, in which he described Miami Beach as “a safe haven for everyone,” contrasting it with New York City, which he said was “intentionally removing protections” for and “promoting boycotts” of Israeli and Jewish businesses.

Pacheco responded to the post by writing, “The guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians, tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings, and REFUSES to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way (even leaves the room when they vote on related matters) wants you to know that you’re all welcome here,” followed by three clown emojis.

She recorded the brief exchange with the detective who spoke with her about the post. In the video, Pacheco is heard asking, “Am I being charged with a crime?” and “So you are here to investigate a statement I allegedly made on Facebook?”

She later added, “This is freedom of speech. This is America, right?”

Pacheco said she believes the visit was politically motivated rather than a matter of public safety.

In the video, the detective is heard saying, “What we are just trying to prevent is somebody else getting agitated or agreeing with the statement, we are not saying if it’s true or not.”

“So that, to me, is a clear indication that people are not allowed to agree with anyone but the mayor and that is not how America works,” Pacheco said. “I don’t agree with him and I am going to continue to voice that.”

The encounter comes amid a national conversation about censorship and free speech, including recent debates sparked by the brief suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live.”

While the First Amendment does not apply to private companies, it does protect Americans from government interference in speech.

In the video, the detective advised Pacheco to “refrain from posting things like that,” telling her that her comment about Meiner’s views on Palestinians “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.”

Pacheco, who said she was simply “calling out” what she described as Meiner’s “hypocrisy,” said her comments do not meet that standard.

Keep reading

Jacksonville official placed on leave after urging social media followers to dodge ICE enforcement

A Jacksonville city employee tasked with outreach to the Hispanic community has been placed on administrative leave after using her taxpayer-funded position and recording the video in her city office during work hours to broadcast warnings and evasion tips to potential immigration violators, undermining the critical work of federal agents enforcing U.S. law.

Yanira Cardona, the Hispanic Outreach Coordinator appointed by Mayor Donna Deegan, went live on Instagram on Wednesday, sounding the alarm that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were “out and about” in the city. She detailed alleged hotspots like speed traps on Emerson, Beach Boulevard, Atlantic Boulevard, and highways, where agents were supposedly targeting lawn care companies, air conditioning services, and construction vans.

“They are literally stopping them just to make sure that they have their paperwork,” Cardona complained in the video, framing routine immigration checks as some kind of harassment rather than the essential law enforcement Florida demands.

Her “advice” to followers included stocking up on lawyers, granting power of attorney for businesses and children to trusted contacts, and, after all the scheming, cooperating if actually stopped.

“I wish I could do more, and I wish I could say more,” she added.

Gov. Ron DeSantis addressed the situation during a press conference on a separate topic. “I know you had that one woman in the City of Jacksonville government putting out information. Look, that’s not the way we roll here in thestate of Florida,” he said. “You know, we’re going to respect the law enforcement, respect the rule of law.”

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier condemned the post as “illegal and needs to be seriously addressed.”

The Republican Party of Florida demanded accountability, calling Cardona’s rhetoric “dangerous” and urging Mayor Deegan to act decisively.

“Florida taxpayers should not foot the bill for deranged anti-ICE rants on how to evade law endorsement,” they said. “[Mayor Deegan] must hold Yanira Cardona accountable for her dangerous rhetoric!”

Keep reading

‘We Need To Kill These People’: Left-Wing TikTok User Calls For ‘More’ Violence Against ICE Agents

A left-wing TikTok user urged his followers to “get violent” and to “kill” United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in a video that rapidly spread across social media Monday.

Resistance to ICE enforcement has grown more and more violent nationwide, with agents fired on and targeted in multiple states amid increasingly heated rhetoric. Tensions have only escalated further in the wake of Wednesday’s fatal shooting of Minnesota resident Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent during an enforcement operation in Minneapolis.

The TikTok user, who posts under the username monkeydbeans0 and uses they/them/theirs pronouns, said ICE agents are just mall cops and Proud Boys and cited Good’s death as justification for his call to murder federal agents.

“I’m just going to come out and say it. I don’t really care about the consequences anymore. I don’t care. We need to kill these people,” the green-haired TikTok user said. “There’s — there’s just no alternative.”

Keep reading

Progressives misdiagnose their X problem

In the year 2002, then US-President George W. Bush did something historic: He became the first sitting US President in decades to see his party gain seats in midterm elections.

This came, at the time, as something of a shock to the still-dominant and still reliably liberal mainstream news outlets in the US. The punditry, as the votes rolled in, was one of shock and surprise and “how could this have happened?” – scenes that would be repeated on election night two years later, and then taken to their absolute extreme in 2016 as Donald Trump consigned the First. Woman. President. to an electoral footnote.

Anyway, that election night has always stuck with me because of an exchange that took place on, I think, CNN between Democrat political advisor James Carville and Bush advisor Karl Rove. “Democrats just didn’t get their message out this time”, intoned Carville, somberly. “No”, replied Rove. “You guys always say that.” “The problem is not that you didn’t get your message out, it is that you did, and people didn’t like it”.

That particular exchange has come to mind in recent days watching the latest round of the twitter/X wars. Yesterday, Una Mullally took to the pages of the Irish Times to become the latest liberal pundit to denounce X. Over in the UK, there is talk of a ban. An internet blackout, of sorts, in a democratic country, preventing the public from accessing Elon Musk’s digital playground. Similar discussions are apparently happening in Australia, Canada, and of course in Brussels.

The official reason is of course that people are shocked, shocked to discover that there is porn on the internet and that AI tools are capable of digitally altering images to remove people’s clothes (I consider myself fortunate enough that nobody would ever wish to do that to me, for the sake of their eyes). But there’s an unofficial reason too, and it’s openly admitted. Here’s Una:

“Politicians need to realise that X is not Twitter. Under Musk, X is a vast disinformation network, a hotbed of racism, hate, extremism and dystopian delusions. It is a radicalisation tool, an arena of harassment, and yes, its chatbot is a creator, publisher and distributor of awful material.”

Note the “and yes” there at the end before she gets to Grok. It’s as plain an admission that you’ll see that the AI porn problem is an ancillary reason, not the primary reason, why politicians should be taking action. The primary reasons are set out in detail before hand: Disinformation, racism, hate, extremism, and something called dystopian delusions.

(Seriously, one might have thought the notion that governments should ban online discussion forums to save democracy from the people was a “dystopian delusion”. Evidently not.)

Keep reading

Here’s PROOF That UK’s X Ban Has NOTHING To Do With Protecting Children

As UK authorities ramp up their assault on free speech, a viral post shared by Elon Musk exposes the glaring hypocrisy in the government’s “protect the children” narrative. Data from the The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and police forces reveals Snapchat as the epicenter of online child sexual grooming, dwarfing X’s minimal involvement.

This comes amid Keir Starmer’s escalating war on X, where community notes routinely dismantle government spin, and unfiltered truth is delivered to the masses. If safeguarding kids was the real goal, it would be the likes of Snapchat in the crosshairs, given that thousands of real world child sexual offences have originated from its use.

Instead they’re going after X because, they claim, it provides the ability to make fake images of anyone in a bikini using the inbuilt Grok Ai image generator.

Based on 2025 NSPCC and UK police data, Snapchat is linked to 40-48% of identified child grooming cases, Instagram around 9-11%, Facebook 7-9%, WhatsApp 9%, and X under 2%.

These numbers align with NSPCC’s alarming report on the surge in online grooming. The charity recorded over 7,000 Sexual Communication with a Child offences in 2023/24—an 89% spike since 2017/18.

Keep reading