A social media algorithm is an incredibly powerful tool. With a slight tweak in coding, Big Tech executives can control what content the public sees or doesn’t see. China via TikTok has had enormous success pumping specific ideologies — most of them harmful — into American culture (not to mention harvesting American data).

During the Biden regime, Jack Dorsey, former CEO of Twitter, and Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, colluded with the government to squash certain stories, like Hunter Biden’s laptop and the Russiagate scandal, and censor Americans who questioned COVID vaccines and mandates.

In this way, the algorithm has the immense power to shape public perception around every single topic.

Our heavily digital society ought to be extremely cautious about this. If we want to protect ourselves, not to mention our children, from indoctrination, radicalization, and addiction, we must be vigilant.

But what does that look like?

Nicole Shanahan, BlazeTV host of “Back to the People,” invited digital media innovator and co-founder of Black Rifle Coffee Company Richard Ryan to the show to discuss this question.

Ryan’s new book, “The Warrior’s Garden,” is a deep dive into the implications and dangers of social media algorithms and a step-by-step guide on how we protect ourselves against harm.

An algorithm fails to be effective in shaping perception if people aren’t spending large quantities of time on the platform. In other words, its power lies in its ability to addict. But creating millions of zombie-like addicts is not just about what content is being circulated; it’s about how it’s being served.

Ryan gives the example of casinos. The games and the potential of cashing in big aren’t the only things that keep gamblers shelling out their hard-earned money. A casino’s environment wields enormous influence on the duration of a person’s stay, which is why they are intentionally engineered to foster addiction. The lack of clocks and windows, the labyrinthine layout where there’s no straight exits, and the bright lights, flashing colors, and constant sounds create a disassociation bubble, where external realities fade.

Social media platforms are basically personalized digital casinos, except we’re not losing our money; we’re losing our time, quality of life, and our ability to think critically and independently, as algorithms chip away at our brains.

“I think we'll find that a lot of this will have some type of implications for memory or cognitive decline, definitely emotional atrophy and different neurological processes for sure,” says Ryan.

If cognitive issues weren't scary enough, our tech addictions are also eating away at our time. This is really terrifying when you think about what time is — “the only currency that we spend that we never know our remaining balance.”

How do we protect ourselves from brain rot and throwing away precious time?

Ryan’s advice is simple:

1. “Figure out where your digital consumption is going.”

2. Ask yourself, “What things do I really value in life?”

3. “Start establishing boundaries.”

For Ryan, this looked like coming to the realization that he didn’t want to “spend 2.8 years of [his] life on TikTok” and instead devote his invaluable hours doing the things he felt were truly life-giving.

He cut back on certain apps, installed a blue-light reducing screen protector, and programmed his phone settings to grayscale. When he got home from work, he started putting his phone by the front door, almost like hanging up a coat jacket.

“I can't compulsively just scroll on the couch or anything like that. I have to be present with everyone that's around me,” he says.

He also got rid of most of his streaming services and bought a blue-ray disc player.

“I said to myself, I'm not going to sit on the couch, and even if we want to watch a movie, we're not going to just ... click on something. If we want to watch something, we're going to agree we're going to go to the movie theater, or we're going to order it, and it'll be here in a day or two,” he tells Nicole.

“Inputs equal outputs because so much of my daily consumption was algorithmically curated to keep me in a fight-or-flight state. Anger, fear, anger, fear — like my inputs were all negative and so by offsetting that with positive inputs, it really had a meaningful impact on my life.”

To hear more of the conversation and learn more about Ryan’s book, watch the full interview above.

Want more from Nicole Shanahan?

To enjoy more of Nicole's compelling blend of empathy, curiosity, and enlightenment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

‘Grandpa was Antifa’ may be the dumbest meme of the decade

The whangdoodles are at it again — raging on X, posting grainy photos of World War II soldiers, and proclaiming, “Grandpa was Antifa!”

Because, you see, Grandpa fought Hitler. Or Hirohito. Or Mussolini. They were fascists, Grandpa was anti-fascist, and since “anti-fascist” shortens to “Antifa,” presto — Grandpa was Antifa.

What these self-styled internet historians are doing is a digital form of stolen valor. ... Grandpa would be appalled.

Right.

Before scourging the ignorant cockwombles pounding keyboards across the internet, let’s define what fascism actually meant.

What fascism meant

Beyond the obvious militarism of Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Hirohito’s Japan, the fascist regimes of the 20th century shared three defining traits. First, a top-down command economy controlled by a central planning body. Second, an integrated industrial and banking system. Third, a relatively homogeneous population under rigid state control.

Now ask yourself: Does the United States fit that mold? No central economic planning agency, no state-directed industrial-banking complex (ask the Fed and the Securities and Exchange Commission), and certainly no single, homogeneous racial population.

What we do have is an ever-multiplying swarm of willfully obtuse, historically illiterate useful idiots eager to join whatever digital mob happens to be trending this week.

The kind who think “being a furry” is a lifestyle choice worth defending.

You know — morons.

Grandpa fought for the Constitution

Among them are the smug keyboard warriors who post their grandfather’s old war photo without knowing a thing about his unit, his history, or the weapon he lugged across Europe — a Thompson M1A1 submachine gun chambered in .45 ACP.

These same people casually toss Grandpa’s honorable service into the same slime bucket as the modern-day anarcho-communists who call themselves “Antifa.” They hijack his image to dignify an extremist movement that despises everything he swore to defend.

Grandpa honored and fought under the American flag. Antifa burns it. They literally call it a “fascist symbol.”

Grandpa didn’t fight for a slogan. He fought for the Constitution. He raised his right hand and swore an oath — to protect and defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If that meant bombing Tojo’s Japan, invading Hitler’s Germany, or crushing Mussolini’s Italy, so be it.

Definitely not Antifa.Bettmann/Getty Images

Generations after him have sworn the same oath. Those men fought communism in Korea and Vietnam, and later took the fight to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and, after 9/11, to al-Qaeda and ISIS across the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa.

Stolen valor for the hashtag age

What these self-styled internet historians are doing is a digital form of stolen valor. They wrap themselves in the virtue of men who actually faced fire, men who earned their medals the hard way — not with a post and a hashtag.

Grandpa would be appalled at his grandkids’ ignorance.

But give it time. Some nimrod, eager for another viral hit, will post a photo of his dad in Afghanistan with the caption: “Dad was intersectional.”

And the whangdoodles will cheer — none the wiser, and none the braver.

TikTok is the new tobacco — and it’s leaving an entire generation lost

A “gigantic mental health catastrophe" began in 2012, and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt believes that overprotecting children in the real world — by not letting them out to play and develop independence — and under-protecting them online is to blame.

Especially now that around every corner is an app fighting for your child’s attention.

“We have all kinds of documents, leaks, docu reports that came out in lawsuits where we hear them talking about all the harm they’re causing and all the things they’re doing to cause addiction. These platforms are designed to grab our kids' attention and never let go because if they let go, it’s going to go to their competitor,” Haidt tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck on “The Glenn Beck Podcast.”

“So I think now that the case is pretty much closed, the argument that ‘Oh well, we just don’t know, we need to gather more information,’ you know, that was the tobacco industry playbook decades ago,” he explains.

Haidt calls it an “evil industry,” with TikTok, Meta, and Snapchat “harming children at an industrial scale.”

“We’re not just talking like a few hundred kids. We’re talking literally tens of millions are harmed and thousands are dead. So I do think that this is having a very pernicious effect on society, on children,” he says.

And it’s not only affecting their attention spans.

“They need to make lots of mistakes and learn from them. And then especially during puberty ... when the brain is changing very, very fast. It’s rewiring from the child to the adult form. And so if in puberty, kids are not out there having adventures and flirting and getting embarrassed and getting in arguments ... if they’re not out there having real world experience, it’s going to prevent the neurons from wiring up in a healthy adult way,” Haidt explains.

“In terms of what they’re going to be like in 30 years, here’s what we can say with some confidence just because these are the way the trends are. They’re going to be more anxious and more fragile,” he continues.

“We never let them grow thick skin. We never let them have those toughening experiences,” he adds.

But that’s not the biggest issue these children will face.

“The biggest one I think is the destruction of the human capacity to pay attention. Young people, they find it very difficult to pay attention to anything for more than 10 or 15 minutes. They find it difficult to watch movies,” Haidt says.

“They find it difficult to read a book, and they’re reading much, much less. Can you imagine Western civilization if we lose books? If it’s all just TikTok?” he asks, noting that while attention span might be the most common, it will also affect demographics.

“The frequency of sex and marriage was already falling with the Millennials. It’s falling much faster with Gen Z. Boys raised on porn who have very poor social skills and play a lot of video games and don’t have really much practice flirting,” Haidt tells Glenn.

“And that’s just on the boy side. The girls especially are more anxious and fragile, which is also a bad sign for marriage,” he adds.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

In a connected world, Americans are more isolated than ever

Loneliness has become an epidemic in America. Millions of people, even when surrounded by others, feel invisible. In tragic irony, we live in an age of unparalleled connectivity, yet too many sit in silence, unseen and unheard.

I’ve been experiencing this firsthand. My children have grown up and moved out. The house that once overflowed with life now echoes with quiet. Moments that once held laughter now hold silence. And in that silence, the mind can play cruel games. It whispers, “You’re forgotten. Your story doesn’t matter.”

We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

It’s a lie.

I’ve seen it in others. I remember sitting at Rockefeller Center one winter, watching a woman lace up her ice skates. Her clothing was worn, her bag battered. Yet on the ice, she transformed — elegant, alive, radiant.

Minutes later, she returned to her shoes, merged into the crowd, unnoticed. I’ve thought of her often. She was not alone in her experience. Millions of Americans live unseen, performing acts of quiet heroism every day.

Shared pain makes us human

Loneliness convinces us to retreat, to stay silent, to stop reaching out to others. But connection is essential. Even small gestures — a word of encouragement, a listening ear, a shared meal — are radical acts against isolation.

I’ve learned this personally. Years ago, a caller called me “Mr. Perfect.” I could have deflected, but I chose honesty. I spoke of my alcoholism, my failed marriage, my brokenness. I expected judgment. Instead, I found resonance. People whispered back, “I’m going through the same thing. Thank you for saying it.”

Our pain is universal. Everyone struggles with self-doubt and fear. Everyone feels, at times, like a fraud. We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

We were made for connection. We were built for community — for conversation, for touch, for shared purpose. Every time we reach out, every act of courage and compassion punches a hole in the wall of isolation.

Photo by oatawa via Getty Images

You’re not alone

If you’re feeling alone, know this: You are not invisible. You are seen. You matter. And if you’re not struggling, someone you know is. It’s your responsibility to reach out.

Loneliness is not proof of brokenness. It is proof of humanity. It is a call to engage, to bear witness, to connect. The world is different because of the people who choose to act. It is brighter when we refuse to be isolated.

We cannot let silence win. We cannot allow loneliness to dictate our lives. Speak. Reach out. Connect. Share your gifts. By doing so, we remind one another: We are all alike, and yet each of us matters profoundly.

In this moment, in this country, in this world, what we do matters. Loneliness is real, but so is hope. And hope begins with connection.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Gavin Newsom’s ‘fascist’ slur echoes in the streets

Over the weekend, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) called White House adviser Stephen Miller a “FASCIST” — all caps — on X. His official press office account repeated the smear. Hours later, a horrific shooting struck a Latter-day Saints church service in Michigan. The two events were unrelated, but the juxtaposition raised an obvious question: Why inflame the public with reckless language at a moment when violence already runs high?

Meanwhile, Attorney General Pam Bondi unsettled conservatives weeks earlier when she said she would prosecute “hate speech.” After decades of watching universities and the media brand nearly every Christian or conservative position as “hate,” many asked whether Bondi was simply turning the same weapon around. Should the right fight with the left’s tactics, or should it fight with righteousness?

We don’t need to wait for courts. The most powerful judgment comes from ordinary Americans who say, peacefully and firmly: Enough.

Bondi later clarified: She meant only speech that incites violence. That matters. But it also forces a deeper look at what counts as incitement under the First Amendment.

What the Supreme Court says

The leading case is Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The Supreme Court ruled that government may not punish “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation” unless the speech is:

directed at inciting imminent lawless action,
intended to produce that violence, and
likely to succeed.

That’s why the classic “fire in a crowded theater” illustration works: If you yell “fire” without cause, and people are trampled, your “speech” helped cause the injuries.

But political and cultural debate is different. The court has given enormous latitude to speech in the public square, even when it is crude or inflammatory.

Where the line blurs

Two other principles complicate matters.

First, libel law: False statements that damage a reputation can lead to civil liability, though public figures face a higher burden (which is why so many crazy National Enquirer stories survive lawsuits).

Second, known risk: If a public figure keeps using rhetoric he has been warned may incite violence, and violence follows, he could face legal exposure.

That’s where Democrats like Newsom invite scrutiny. They lecture the public about “toning down rhetoric,” yet hurl the same charges themselves. At the attempted assassination of Charlie Kirk, one cartridge bore the phrase, “Hey fascist! Catch!” Democrats know this language fuels hatred. They keep using it anyway. At best, it is hypocrisy. At worst, it edges toward the standard they want to impose on conservatives.

The moral dimension

Hypocrisy is ugly, of course, but it isn’t illegal. Nor should it be. The First Amendment protects the right to be foolish, offensive, and wrong. The remedy for bad speech is not government censorship but the judgment of a free people.

Conservatives do not need to silence their opponents. They can simply withdraw support: Stop watching their shows, stop buying their books, stop supporting their advertisers, and stop voting for their candidates. Hypocrites can keep talking into the void.

Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

And we can model a better way. Instead of trading insults, use arguments. Expose false assumptions and dismantle them in public view. That was Charlie Kirk’s example, and it is the model conservatives need to multiply.

Marxist professors may keep their jobs, but let them lecture to empty classrooms. Late-night hosts may keep sneering, but let them do so without advertisers. That is how a free people governs the public square — by choosing what to reward and what to ignore.

Discernment over censorship

Christians and conservatives should not wait for government to police “hate speech.” That path leads only to disappointment, or worse, to censorship of our own beliefs when power changes hands.

Instead, take practical steps:

Teach young people how to spot manipulative rhetoric and defeat it with arguments.
Withdraw money, time, and attention from those who abuse free speech.
Support institutions that foster open debate rather than silencing it.

If Democrats someday cross the Brandenburg line and face legal consequences, so much the better. But we don’t need to wait for courts. The most powerful judgment comes from ordinary Americans who say, peacefully and firmly: Enough.

YouTube bans Alex Jones and Nick Fuentes AGAIN immediately after saying it would support 'free expression'

Less than two days after YouTube was alleged to be giving banned creators a second chance, the platform has reportedly banned controversial commentators Nick Fuentes and Alex Jones.

The news comes after Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) made announcements about how Google, parent of YouTube, was prepared to make a series of policy changes after admitting to the fact that "White House pressure" during the Biden administration led to censorship of "political debate on COVID and elections."

'To clarify, we terminated this channel as it's still against our rules for previously terminated users to start a new channel ...'

Rep. Jordan wrote on X, "Due to our oversight efforts, GOOGLE commits to offer ALL creators previously kicked off YouTube due to political speech violations to return to the platform."

Testing out the new alleged commitments, both Alex Jones' Infowars platform and Fuentes reportedly started new YouTube channels. According to Infowars, it started a channel called AlexJonesLive, while Fuentes reportedly started RealNickFuentes.

On Thursday morning, Infowars said its channel had been removed, while AF Post, along with some Fuentes supporters, said his page was taken down by YouTube as well.

It was not long before YouTube responded to both claims directly and revealed that the pages were not taken down by mistake.

— (@)

Replying to Infowars, YouTube said, "To clarify, we terminated this channel as it's still against our rules for previously terminated users to start a new channel — the pilot program for terminations isn't available yet and will be a limited pilot program to start."

The platform added, "We'll have more to share on how the pilot program will work, who is eligible, and how creators can access it very soon."

In response to the report by AF Post, YouTube similarly wrote that the company "terminated these channels as it's still against our rules for previously terminated users to start new channels."

On its own X page, YouTube explained again that the pilot program is not yet live and that it will continue to terminate "new channels from previously terminated users in accordance with these guidelines."

— (@)

A spokesman for Rep. Jordan told Blaze News that the new YouTube program will only "extend at a minimum to any users banned for policies no longer in effect."

The spokesman added, "The policies that have been rolled back the most were the COVID-19 and elections policies. This will include thousands of Americans and likely disproportionately conservatives. Others may be welcomed back onto the platform as well."

Jordan's office explained that, as they understand it, YouTube meant that the "limited" portion of the program referred to only users who were banned for policies that were no longer in effect. Still, Jordan's team referred to this as a "massive change," stating they believe it to be the first time YouTube has made a policy shift in this manner.

"But the main fact remains unchanged," the spokesman continued. "ANY account banned for policies no longer in effect WILL be allowed back onto the platform."

Blaze News asked Rep. Jordan's team if they know when the expected pilot program is set to begin; his team said they did not, but that they "expect a much larger announcement in the coming days from YouTube and that people will start returning to the platform soon."

"Our understanding is that YouTube is referring to it as a pilot program because it is a new step YouTube has not taken before, and there may be issues to work through with the rollout," the spokesman added.

— (@)

Fuentes spoke on his channel's deletion his X page on Thursday, noting YouTube's comment about reinstating "channels they approve under a 'limited pilot program.'"

"Sounds a little ridiculous. Can't we just have free speech?" he asked. "I've been banned since February 2020 when I was 21 years old."

He continued on his show, "America First," and revealed it was Jones' idea to do a "stress test" on YouTube by creating new accounts.

"It didn't last even 12 hours," he explained. "YouTube should have free speech; you said you have a renewed commitment to free speech. But you're still banning people?"

Vivek Ramaswamy, Republican candidate for governor of Ohio, said that while he thinks Fuentes may not like him, he still finds it "un-American" for his channel to be removed.

"Our country is at its best when we're able to hear one another," Ramaswamy wrote on X. "Nick Fuentes & Jimmy Kimmel probably don't like me, for different reasons. I don't care. It's still un-American to muzzle the peaceful expression of opinions. And no, that's not a legal point, it's a cultural point."

YouTube did not respond to Blaze News' questions about its pilot program.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Want more from Nicole Shanahan?

What fascism meant

Grandpa fought for the Constitution

Stolen valor for the hashtag age

Want more from Glenn Beck?

Shared pain makes us human

You’re not alone

What the Supreme Court says

Where the line blurs

The moral dimension

Discernment over censorship

Why the Bible is suddenly flying off shelves across America

If it’s ‘worse than Watergate,’ then why the media blackout?

Campuses cry, “Save Gaza!” but say NOTHING when Hamas executes Palestinians

Michael Rapaport torches 'Zohran the moron,' urges New Yorkers to send Mamdani 'back to the unemployment line'

Truckers push back on driver-shortage ‘myth’ that has led to flood of foreigners in long-haul industry

The archbishop who drove the gospel out of England

Want more from Nicole Shanahan?

What fascism meant

Grandpa fought for the Constitution

Stolen valor for the hashtag age

Want more from Glenn Beck?

Shared pain makes us human

You’re not alone

What the Supreme Court says

Where the line blurs

The moral dimension

Discernment over censorship

We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.