Heat death of the discourse?



There’s an undeniable feeling of the air coming out of the balloon of discourse on x.com. Some of this is natural enough. We can’t be at a fever pitch all the time, and now that the most important election of all time is over, we’ve all earned at least a breather.

But there’s a deeper, more sweeping effect at work.

The Perfume Nationalist just laid it out as well as anyone in a long and bracing X thread. “It may have taken seven years but I've reached this point,” he begins. “The plot lines are so utterly repellent because it ended, we won. The things you all fight about are completely made up. We won and you can just let Trump do everything.”

Trump’s win shifted the center of political gravity away from the ideological intelligentsia toward not just 'tech' but to the agentic, whether human or machine.

“I don't need to know which malignant groupchat dirtbag leftist who was based-curious in 2021 has written a substack renouncing their dalliance with the right,” he goes on, subtweeting a raft of right-wing-disenchanted online personalities whose grievances and disappointments were recently aired out by a lefty New York Times columnist. “You should've known they were bad at the time. You didn't trust the plan. We won. The side of good won. There was a happy ending. The big Snow White book closed on the page that said THE END. You're free now you can go read a book. There's nothing here since it ended.”

The rant expands from there. “Everyone is supposed to be happy at THE END like Beauty and the Beast where the household appliances are changed back into people. But here you chose to stay household appliances."

"Everyone anonymous has an incredible real job as a lawyer or a censor at the libtard factory. You don't even have to shill your wares here.”

What is going on is that “the right” or the “anti-woke” rebel alliance became so intellectually top-heavy during the bad old Biden years that many of its leading and most popular figures defined the identity of the movement as an intellectual one, a talking one, one that not only won by talking but could only talk, not do — at best, have ideas and then talk about them.

So it became extremely important to have the right ideas, the very best and most correct ideas. But at the same time, paradoxically, it became essential to the movement and its leading online figures that their incredibly superior ideas also be strangely ineffective or unpopular — in a constant state of existential threat and crisis, demanding perpetual belligerent defense and pedantic exposition.

Trump’s win shifted the center of political gravity away from the ideological intelligentsia toward not just “tech” but to the agentic, whether human or machine. What is especially interesting is that this shift not only imperils the identity and the lifestyle of the perpetually arrogant and embattled “wrongthinker” who is ackshually right about everything; so too does it undermine the basic value proposition of X as the so-called “global public square” — transparently an onboarding scheme to achieve a new cyborg sort of “collective consciousness.”

There is a lot of talk in certain online circles about the antichrist-like vibe of this swarm consciousness and the identity that arises from it, but the naive or practical version of the notion must also be acknowledged, namely that our human consciousness is always already relational — and so far, at least, the printing press and the television have done a lot more than digital technology to encourage and accelerate violent, destructive substitutes for the shared spiritual consciousness of Christian communion.

And whereas print and television unleashed an overwhelming world war on words, Trump’s win amid today’s digital conditions augurs the paradoxical corrective that, if we’re headed into a golden age, perhaps it’s because we’re rediscovering how silence is golden.

That leaves the question of what will become of X, the internet, or AI itself if the blather and discord subside and the bots become heirs to a desertified digital commons … and who will actually care!

U.S. Congressman Backtracks On Social Media Post Claiming He Fired Weapons At Nuclear-Armed Russia

The post leaves little room for interpretation. It sure looks like a sitting U.S. congressman fired shots into Russia, ratcheting up tensions.

Blaze News original: ​'Austin Metcalf got exactly what he deserved — point blank, period': Karmelo Anthony defenders go viral



As the case heats up against Karmelo Anthony — the 17-year-old charged with murdering Texas high school star athlete Austin Metcalf earlier this month in connection with the fatal stabbing at a Frisco track meet — something else has been playing out apart from the legal and investigative aspects.

There's been no shortage of beliefs expressed on social media concerning how the case should conclude. Indeed, many believe Anthony should go to prison for a very long time. Prosecutors cannot seek the death penalty or life without parole for juveniles, however, due to a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, Collin County District Attorney Greg Willis told WFAA-TV.

'Y’all said 17-yr-old Kyle Rittenhouse was justified in killing two people with an AR-15 because he felt threatened. 17-yr-old Karmelo Anthony was defending himself when he killed Austin Metcalf with a knife, and y’all think he deserves to go to prison. I wonder whyTE.'

But others on social media are defending Anthony, saying he stabbed Metcalf in self-defense and should be freed. Indeed, a judge on Monday granted Anthony house arrest and reduced his bond from $1 million to $250,000. Also as of Monday, the GiveSendGo fundraising page for Anthony eclipsed $415,000 after topping $250,000 early last week.

Whether or not Anthony's release from jail is a first step toward a not-guilty verdict remains to be seen, but there is a growing number of folks who would seem to love nothing better.

One X user — in a post that has attracted 1.2 million views — predicted that "Karmelo Anthony will be a free young man soon." The user based the prediction on a now-apparently deleted TikTok video included in the post from an individual who claimed that a Texas male recently was given just 30 days in jail and 10 years probation after fatally stabbing a friend amid mutual combat.

The reason for the seemingly lenient sentence, according to the video creator, is because in Texas, if you're legally allowed to be in a given place, you can use deadly force to protect yourself from serious bodily injury — and that Anthony was legally allowed to be at the track meet.

"Maybe we should train people to not put their hands on people," the video creator also said, adding "control your urges; control this neanderthal, territorial bulls**t."

Another X user — in a post that has attracted over 773,000 views — pointed out a video by a white male who defends Anthony and supports his innocence. And what did the X user say about Anthony's white supporter? "See, this cracka gets it. Karmelo Anthony is innocent — free him!"

An X post with over 683,000 views insists that Anthony "is an exceptional, upstanding, suburban, young teen boy. He is an honor roll student, works an honest job, and he's a hero! If we allow them to paint this teenage boy as some Thug or reckless 'YN,' we failed, and no Black boy in America is safe!"

A post in defense of Anthony — containing numerous unproven allegations — managed to attract nearly 330,000 views, and another X user — in a post that has pulled in 329,000 views — wrote that "Kyle Rittenhouse can be 17 with an AR-15, Karmelo Anthony CAN'T be 17 with a knife. Make it make sense."

Another X poster who pulled in nearly 288,000 views claimed that students who were at the fatal stabbing said Metcalf "beat up" Anthony "at a party a week prior over a girl" — despite witnesses telling police that Anthony and Metcalf, in fact, did not know each other.

Then, there are those who have called Anthony an "American hero" (123,000 views) and even claimed an image of an infant wearing KKK attire is Metcalf's "baby photo" (84,000 views).

That's already a lot of claims reaching a lot of eyes — and well before those who actually matter in the case bring evidence and testimony.

But the latter posts are nothing compared to the ones coming up. The following is a breakdown of five of the most viral social media takes defending Anthony:

Female in viral clip declares that 'Austin Metcalf got exactly what he deserved — point blank, period'


Perhaps the most-viewed and controversial reaction in support of Anthony is a 51-second viral video showing a female — with the words "Free Karmelo" superimposed over her forehead — declaring that Metcalf "got exactly what he deserved — point blank, period."

The following is the entirety of her spoken statement:

Y'all not gonna make me believe or feel any kind of sympathy for Austin Metcalf at all. He put his hands on that young man when he should've kept them hands to himself. When the young man told him, 'Touch me and see, you [better] not touch me,' that meant that 'I don't want you in my space, I don't want you touching me.' Rosa Park[s] days is [sic] over. You cannot think that can move somebody out of a seat that you don't own and think that it's gonna be OK. And you can't determine how I'm gonna retaliate on you when [you] put your hands on me in an aggressive manner. Austin Metcalf got exactly what he deserved — point blank, period. It's time out for feelin' sorry for somebody['s] feelings or feelin' emotional about somebody['s] feelings. Austin Metcalf should've kept his damn hands to himself — point blank, period.

The identity of the female in the video is not clear, but the clip can be found in numerous spots on social media. The X post from End Wokeness featuring the video has received 5.2 million views since April 8. Some responses to her take include the following:

  • "How do you fix this kind of sociopathy?" one commenter wondered.
  • "Disgusting crap," another user declared. "If we are now in a place of defending murder, what’s next[?]"
  • "She wasn't there," another commenter noted. "She wasn't a witness. She doesn't know the facts. So what is she talking about??"

Not all of the commenters pushed back against the female in the video, however. One person posted the following reaction: "I wouldn’t say he got what he deserved, but a very valuable lesson was learned for others. For every action, there’s a reaction. 'Touch me and see what happens.' He f**ked around and found out."

Chilling video shows smiling female speaking softly while warning viewers, 'Keep your motherf**king hands to yourself' — and as children are heard playing in background


Another viral video featuring another unidentified female defending Anthony is rather chilling. She smiles and speaks softly as she warns viewers, "Keep your motherf**king hands to yourself" — all while children are heard playing in the background.

The following is the entirety of her unsettling spoken statement:

Keep your hands to yourself ... keep your motherf**king hands to yourself. Yeah. Why should I have to tell you over and over again to f**k around and find out? ... Keep your motherf**king hands to yourself. 'Why he brought a knife to the school? ... Oh, he was lookin' to go there to murder.' Y'all motherf**kers trying to act like y'all purposely tryin' to misunderstand the situation when you see it clear as day like we all do. Hmm. He ain't went there to stab no whole school up. He ain't went there to stab no whole track meet up — like y'all go there to shoot a whole school up. Yeah, he had [a knife] for protection; anything can happen — just like anything happened that day! That's why he had it. It tells you right there. Mmm hmm. Yeah. I can't even stroll good without hearing that sound. Y'all know the sound. When you're black, you're never really lonely. 'Cuz there's always a person all up in your business. Yeah. Mmm hmm. Now let's ask the realest question of 'em all: Why that boy feel entitled to go over there and put his hands on somebody else? Hmm? Why? If the parents was there like they claimin' to be, and the mom that's on TV [crying] her eyes out, why didn't she step up and get up and say, 'Hey baby, you can't be over here. You should find your own original tent.' I've ran track. They've been doing this for the longest, the same way. Kids are spread out everywhere. I have a niece that does it. Mmm hmm. Keep your hands to yourself. When I was in my yard the other day minding my business [someone asked] why me and my baby in the sun in our own yard. Like I told her, 'I ain't answerin' no questions. If you step in this yard, you'll be the next bitch to find out.'

The video is part of an April 8 X post from Unlimited L's, and it has received 4.8 million views so far. Here are some responses to the video:

  • "Her attitude and demeanor during her entitled rant is enough to just piss you off," one commenter stated.
  • "I don’t like to typically wish misery upon people, but this lady needs to have karma come knocking at her door. I hope she is humbled in some way shape or form. If not, I hope she feels an influx of misery. She is everything wrong with this world, absolute scumbag!" another user declared.
  • "She is recording this while little kids are playing next to her smh," another commenter observed.
  • "The spirit coming out of this is evil — just murderously evil," another user wrote. "I feel like I'm listening to a demon talking through her, and it's practically licking its lips."

Since Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Penny were 'justified' in using 'lethal self-defense,' Karmelo Anthony also was 'justified' in doing so, activist says


With 4.3 million views so far is an April 4 pro-Anthony reaction from Tariq Nasheed, who has more than 377,000 followers on X. It reads: "If Kyle Rittenhouse was justified in using lethal self-defense... And Daniel Penny was justified in using lethal self-defense.... Then Karmelo Anthony was justified in using self-defense against alleged bullies who instigated an altercation, correct?"

Another April 4 take from Nasheed has garnered 2.2 million views and reads as follows: "A suspected white supremacist named Austin Metcalf ... allegedly demanded honor student Karmelo Anthony give up his seat — like it was the Jim Crow era. Karmelo defended himself from the alleged threat. The Daniel Penny case set this precedent."

One commenter responded by saying, "You’re a disgusting human, Tariq Nasheed. Austin Metcalf was just m*rdered by a thug, and you falsely accuse Metcalf of being a 'white supremacist' and the aggressor. Shame on you. You need to be sued for defamation." Nasheed's response — which was ratioed fairly decisively — reads as follows: "I didn’t say he was a white supremacist. There are many people who SUSPECTS [sic] him of being one. That’s why I said SUSPECTED."

Nasheed has posted or reposted more than 20 reactions focusing on the Anthony-Metcalf situation. He also has a YouTube channel called "Tariq Radio" and links to a website highlighting "Foundational Black Americans," which defines them as "proud descendants of the Black men and women who endured and survived one of the greatest atrocities in human history—American slavery."

Bishop Talbert Swan blasts those who believe Karmelo Anthony should go to prison — and brings up race in the process: 'I wonder whyTE'


Bishop Talbert Swan — who has been covered more than a few times by Blaze News over the years — offered the following April 6 reaction to the Anthony-Metcalf controversy: "Y’all said 17-yr-old Kyle Rittenhouse was justified in killing two people with an AR-15 because he felt threatened. 17-yr-old Karmelo Anthony was defending himself when he killed Austin Metcalf with a knife, and y’all think he deserves to go to prison. I wonder whyTE."

Swan has just over 216,000 X followers, and his above X post attracted 2.1 million views. As you can imagine, Swan's racially charged take was met with just a bit of hostility:

  • "Are you really this stupid or are you just pretending?" one commenter asked.
  • "Are you f**king serious?" another user remarked before declaring Swan's take as "one of the most delusional" and that he "should be ashamed" to refer to himself as a "bishop."
  • "I'm pretty sure there's a special place in hell for people who stoke racial hatred under the guise of religion... you damn false prophet!" another commenter declared.
  • "Throwing gasoline on the race fire. As usual," another user wrote.

Swan posted a separate but similar April 6 X reaction, which has drawn 653,000 views: "White folks out here asking why Karmelo Anthony had a knife but had no problem with 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse having an AR-15 that he wasn’t licensed to carry."

'Racist people' assume Anthony 'must not have had his father in his life,' that his dad must be a 'no-good person to raise this thug,' video creator says. Then, she declares Metcalf, his twin brother came from 'a broken home.'


Another video from yet another unidentified female asserts that "racist people" assume Anthony "must not have had his father in his life, and his father must be a deadbeat, no-good person to raise this thug, and that he must be livin' in the hood and not livin' good." The female on the video is surrounded by what she says are photos of Anthony's "very middle, upper-class family" that include "his father, his mother, and his siblings"; she adds that the family has been together "for over 17 years."

"Interesting," she continues. "Because I think a lot of racist people were saying that [Anthony] didn't come from a loving family, and that his father was probably in prison or a loser and had abandoned him when he was young because of the stereotypes that you guys hear about black people — 'the black father must not have been in the home.' Well, it seems like his father loves him very much, and it seems like he was raised a good, young man — whether you guys like it or not. But you know who came from a broken home? The Metcalf boys came from a broken home because their parents aren't together. ... I wonder how coming from a home where the parents aren't together ... would have affected the twins? Hmm. I wonder." A clip of Anthony practicing with his football team ends the video.

The female's video appears in a post from a different X user who prefaces the clip by saying, "Karmelo was raised in a stable two-parent home, unlike the Metcalf twins, who came from a broken household. Given the circumstances, the stabbing was clearly an act of self-defense — and self-defense is not a crime." The post has received 1.5 million views.

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

UFC begins partnership with Meta's Threads as Elon Musk sits ringside



UFC 314 saw an integration with Meta's Threads platform in place of where viewers would typically see fan posts from Elon Musk's X.

The Kaseya Center in Miami, Florida, saw a plethora of political attendees, including President Donald Trump but also Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and Elon Musk.

With the X owner present in Musk, it certainly seemed like bad timing for the UFC to introduce a new integration with Threads, Mark Zuckerberg's competitor to Musk's platform.

Typically, posts from X are shown mid-fight to garner fan reaction or journalists' opinions on how the fight should be scored. On Saturday, however, the social media posts were pulled from Threads instead.

The integration came less than two weeks after a Meta-UFC partnership was announced, focusing on innovation and content sharing.

'Meta has the greatest minds in tech.'

According to ESPN, the two companies will work on ways to incorporate Meta's augmented reality and Meta Glasses into UFC broadcasts.

White claimed that Meta is working on innovations for a new fighter ranking system; the UFC boss had long taken issue with some of the decisions made by media members who had influence on fighter rankings and announced last October that changes were coming.

"Meta has the greatest minds in tech and they are going to take fan engagement to the next level," White said in a statement.

Zuckerberg added, "I love this sport and I'm looking forward to working with the UFC to let fans experience it in new ways."

While no financial terms were disclosed, the partnership comes after an ever-growing relationship between the two entrepreneurs, which culminated in White being named to Meta's board of directors in February.

White said at the time that he visited Zuckerberg for dinner in Lake Tahoe and was impressed by his decor and attitude.

"[I] walk into his living room of his house, and they put me in the living room to wait, and he's got this American flag on the wall with 13 stars on it, and I'm like, 'Off to a good start,'" White told Tucker Carlson.

White noted he was also impressed by Zuckerberg sporting the "biggest American flag you've ever seen" in his backyard over the lake.

White then recalled, "We sit down, we have dinner, and we probably talk for four hours, and I walked away from that first meeting liking Mark, and we started to create a relationship from there. We talked ... and we became friends."

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

Upgrade to a dumbphone



I will spare you the argument against smartphones and go directly to the part where you redesign your life and your engagement with tech by switching to a dumbphone.

You’re going to come to a place and time when, as with the redeemed crackhead, the Spirit compels you to turn from your addiction and drop the pipe and the rock for good because all the myriad justifications have worn thin and have shown themselves to be empty.

There are innumerable manuals, studies, and paths related to dropping addiction. Or, if you prefer a gentler euphemism, building new habits.

Or you won’t — and, in the best-case scenario, your life will be characterized by an internal war you wage against your better self as directed by a set of parasitic algorithms.

So here's a list of suggestions about how to get into the dumbphone.

Find an alternative (for now)

If you want to go full cabin-in-the-woods, there are ways and means. Good luck out there, and meet me at the tree line. However, if you decide that staying in phone (voice and text) contact with the world of men is necessary or wise, then you’re likely looking at what we lovingly refer to as the dumbphone. We are stepping back into 2004.

We all know the Nokia stands out. (No one is sponsoring this article.) They are cheap and rugged, and the plans are flexible. Get one.

Backstop expectations

Employers, loved ones, and almost everyone else expect you to have a phone and everything that comes with it. Cut them off at the proverbial pass by building in some alternatives to those few features of the phone that are (sort of) useful.

Get a small flashlight. Buy a dumbphone with a half-decent camera.

Pick up an atlas or "Thomas Guide." If that’s not enough, perhaps it is worthwhile to retain or install some equivalent navigational aid or app in your vehicle.

Advice: Once the dopamine circuits in your brain have been stabilized, you can go back and refine your replacements. Escape need not be perfect. You’re going to find yourself on the outside; the world is now weird. Just keep refining your alternative methods.

Pick a time

As you design your way out of the smartphone trap, what’s frustrating is that almost no one is going to sympathize or know how to help. You’re on your own.

It’s quite a world where you need to justify your choice not to participate in something so strongly correlated with depression, dissatisfaction, isolation, and lifestyle choices generally at odds with those proven over huge stretches of time. (You don’t need the studies if you lived through 2008 ... or 2016 ... or 2020 ... or ...)

Pick a long weekend or vacation to make the initial change. This at least gives you some leeway to flop around and bemoan flagging levels of dopamine and do the interior work of shoring yourself up to carry through the operation.

Call in some favors

As with the above, it’s wise to tell your loved ones — especially your spouse — that your communications situation is changing. There are mixed reports regarding the value of “accountability partners” (individuals to whom you report your progress in some difficult personal change), but again, if you’re going all in, why not throw everything you’ve got at it? No doubt, husband and wife picking up the dumbphone together is only sensible.

Lay in provisions

It is always best to keep that "Thomas Guide," those comforting snacks, and the other considerations mentioned above close to hand and mind, but there are other problems to address, too. For example, there are decisions to be made about whether to keep sundry smartphone apps and resources and, if so, which ones.

The big question for many potential dumbphone users will be about social media use. As it stands, the vast majority of users are stuck to their phones for their X or Instagram fix. Both of these and probably many similar platforms are available in a desktop version. Getting used to the differences in the interfaces (assuming you’re keeping some tether to them at all) is a worthwhile preparatory step.

The situation extends, of course, to crypto wallets and apps and any other phone-based software you care to hold on to — it may be easier to let go of the smartphone if much of its supposed utility can simply be stored on a laptop or a desktop.

Power through

There are innumerable manuals, studies, and paths related to dropping addiction. Or, if you prefer a gentler euphemism, building new habits. The issue, of course, is that the modern mind, when pressed, excels at justification.

The truth of our predicament is likely that the smartphone is a symptom of a much deeper, more subtle malaise. Will reverting to a dumbphone make it feel worse? In the short term, it’s quite common in situations like these for our lives to feel even emptier without whatever was sustaining the illusion of having a genuine experience of being.

For many of us, we’ve already run the gamut of self-improvement and hacks. Dropping the phone is a choice near the tail end of that progression. It’s easy to play the aforementioned game of justification with respect to order of tasks. But it may also be necessary to address other issues before taking up the path of the dumbphone ...

If You’re Hysterical About Trump’s Tariffs, Go Touch Grass

If toting a fainting couch around with you is your thing, fine. But there’s really no need to live this way.

‘Hillbilly’ Vance And Billionaire Trump Are Relatable For The Same Reason

The public has come to know J.D. Vance as their fellow American — not a cheap imitation but the real deal.

Government overreach warped a law to protect the internet. Now Congress might let it die. Here’s why.



Why does Section 230 exist? Section 230 shields tech companies from liability for the user-generated content they host. If you listened to the 230 absolutists here (one of whom even has a 230 tattoo), the story of 230 might sound like a divine creation story.

In the beginning, God created Section 230. Now, the internet was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the blessings of liberty were hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be Section 230,” and there was Section 230.

So why would Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) even think about sunsetting this law, potentially returning the internet to the world of darkness? In the real story of Section 230, the government created Section 230. And that story begins with good intentions but ends with government overreach.

Let us begin with the good intentions. Imagine that, hypothetically, a rapist and human trafficker becomes a popular social media influencer on X. And one of his victims tweets that he is a rapist and human trafficker. The influencer then files a frivolous defamation lawsuit against not just the victim—but also against X for hosting her tweet.

In that situation, X can invoke the legal shield of Section 230, and the judge will dismiss the lawsuit. But that is only where the story begins, not where it ends.

Imagine that you’re in high school, and you learn from your classmates that there’s child porn of you on Twitter. Multiple people contact Twitter to take it down, and you even provide Twitter a copy of your ID when asked, but it still doesn't take it down — until a federal agent intervenes.

You sue Twitter, alleging that it violated federal child pornography laws. Twitter does not even attempt to contest that allegation. Instead, it invokes the legal shield of Section 230, and the judge dismisses your claim.

That, in a nutshell, is the real story of Doe v. Twitter: “Twitter does not argue that Plaintiffs have failed to allege a violation of Section 2252A but contend this claim is barred by CDA § 230 immunity. The Court agrees.”

In tech policy, we must analyze the full scope of a law. In Moody v. NetChoice (2024), the court chided both sides for confining their battle to the “heartland applications” of a law and for ignoring the “full scope” of the law’s coverage.

And while the 230 absolutists will defend Section 230 based on its heartland applications — defamation and other forms of tort liability — the full scope of Section 230 touches every single federal and state law, including federal child pornography laws.

Section 230 is the government. It’s a special immunity for the tech industry that’s created by the government. Under normal circumstances, the story of Doe v. Twitter should be a story where injustice triumphs because of government overreach.

Yet, when Sen. Graham and Sen. Durbin attempted to narrowly reform Section 230 for child porn alone, they were met with an apocalyptic reaction from both D.C. lobbyists and D.C. think tanks. And the worst culprits were the (corporate) libertarians who supposedly hate government overreach.

Perhaps that explains why both senators are now trying to sunset Section 230: to obtain leverage for 230 reform. In D.C., the easiest path is one where the Congress does nothing. Today, Section 230 stays the same if nothing happens. Sen. Graham and Sen. Durbin lack meaningful leverage — even if they are attempting to reform 230 for child porn alone.

But if Section 230 sunsets on January 1, 2027, it gets repealed if Congress does nothing. Now Sen. Graham and Sen. Durbin hold the leverage. And while I could speak for hours to debunk the bad (or even bad-faith) arguments against 230 reform, those bad arguments also lose their power when the people making them lose their leverage.

No immunity for child porn does not mean, for example, that a tech company would be directly liable for every piece of child porn that a user posts. No federal or state law imposes such strict liability — in part because that would be unconstitutional under Smith v. California (1959). For all this talk of how Section 230 is “the Internet’s First Amendment,” repealing Section 230 would not repeal the actual First Amendment.

No immunity for child porn does mean, however, that if any incident like Doe v. Twitter were to repeat itself, government overreach would not block the victims from seeking justice.

I called out the CIA on X — and then my account disappeared



Some say the Central Intelligence Agency is the world’s leading cause of “coincidences.”

This might be another one. Just as the government released thousands of JFK assassination files, I — a former CIA officer turned whistleblower — was suddenly blocked from posting reform proposals on social media.

The experience showed just how powerful X has become in the fight against deep-state corruption. Americans want their country back from those who have taken control.

I post regularly on X, sharing updates on CIA activity and government corruption. My account has 125,000 followers and delivers unfiltered information without paid promotion.

After 17 years in the CIA, including high-level assignments across multiple global stations, I know how the agency operates — and how often it violates the U.S. Constitution without consequence.

Since I began publicly exposing CIA corruption in 2010, I have created documents and posted videos about CIA misconduct. My computer crashes frequently — twice in the past four months — destroying all my data. Even my backup account on Carbonite failed to save this information. Recently, “someone” accessed my primary computer through the router and specifically targeted and corrupted only the files and videos related to the CIA, rendering them inaccessible.

My account on X has been a quick and protected way to get this information to Americans. In my book, “Twilight of the Shadow Government: How Transparency Will Kill the Deep State,” written with my courageous co-author Kent Heckenlively, we reveal the CIA’s criminal and unconstitutional operations for everyone to see. “Light dispels darkness,” as so many have observed. In the book, Kent and I lay out 12 steps that must be taken to reform the CIA.

Two weeks ago, on my X account, I spelled out 13 additional radical steps to reform the CIA and end its tyranny of secrecy once and for all. I posted each step back-to-back. These reforms are lethal to the CIA’s control over all three branches of our elected government — and the fear of reprisal against anyone who challenges its power.

Maybe it was the 13th step that annoyed the agency the most: “Legally indict and charge CIA officials who engage in a criminal conspiracy to silence whistleblowers, block information from Congress, or violate U.S. and constitutional law.” It just wouldn’t be the same old CIA any more if they couldn’t lie to Congress or our duly elected president.

The day after I posted the 13 steps, I received a warning from X stating I had violated its guidelines and was being suspended for multiple copyright violations. I was unable to log in and access my account. Four attempts to appeal the suspension resulted in a boilerplate response instructing me to log in to my account for further information.

Of course, I was unable to log in to do so.

What’s more, I could not follow any other X users or post comments on their pages. It was an endless loop of blockages. This occurred just as 80,000 pages of JFK assassination documents were released — a critical moment. I had prepared evidentiary posts indicating the CIA was involved in the murder of President John F. Kennedy. My position as a CIA officer who had worked in all four agency directorates — as well as being the only one to publicly challenge the state secrets privilege and publish a book about the history of the CIA without the agency's approval — made me unique among commentators.

Finally, I contacted my dear friend Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — who has reached the same conclusion regarding the CIA's culpability in the murder of his uncle — spelling out what had just happened. Since he is extremely busy with his new Cabinet post at Health and Human Services, I was unsure whether I would receive an answer.

Within a matter of hours, I received a text back from Bobby. He advised me that he had passed my text to James Musk — Elon’s cousin and an X executive. James responded immediately. After researching the matter, James advised me that X had not suspended @kevin_shipp. Some entity — perhaps the CIA? — had created a fraudulent @kevin_shipp account, which caused an override of the true account and sent me a fictitious X community guidelines violation along with multiple copyright violation claims on the 13 steps to CIA reform.

James uncovered this malicious attack in just under two hours. Following his guidance on how to regain access to the real account, @kevin_shipp was back up, and all 13 steps were there and open for comments.

What a relief to see my first post go live again — just one word: “Test.” My co-author quickly shared the story on X, paying to boost the post. It reached 1.6 million people.

The experience showed just how powerful X has become in the fight against deep-state corruption. Americans want their country back from those who have taken control.

Watching Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and James Musk respond so swiftly and boldly to a targeted attack on my account was inspiring and reassuring. That night, I slept peacefully, knowing I wasn’t alone in standing up for our republic.

This fight isn’t mine alone — it belongs to all of us. And with people like Kennedy and Musk stepping up, we’re finally pushing back.

Utah requires app stores to verify ages in trailblazing child safety law



Utah Governor Spencer Cox (R) signed new legislation on Wednesday that requires mobile app stores, including Apple and Google, to implement a user age verification process to protect children online.

The law, sponsored by Sen. Todd Weiler (R) and Rep. James Dunnigan (R), passed earlier this month. The bill takes effect on May 7.

'The apps are the first main gateway to how you protect children.'

Instead of age checks at app download, Utah's law mandates that app stores verify ages up front. The App Store Accountability Act, a first-of-its-kind law, requires providers to confirm users' age categories, secure parental consent for minors, and share that data with app developers. A minor may download or purchase an app or make in-app purchases only with consent from a linked parental account.

The act prohibits app stores from enforcing contracts against minors who did not receive parental consent or from "misrepresenting parental content disclosures."

Utah's Division of Consumer Protection has been tasked with establishing age verification standards.

Additionally, Utah's new legislation "creates a private right of action for parents of harmed minors," "provides a safe harbor for compliant developers," and "includes a severability clause."

The law permits parents to sue app providers that violate the act, claiming $1,000 per violation or actual damages.

Meta, X, and Snap Inc. issued a joint statement praising Utah's new legislation.

We applaud Governor Cox and the State of Utah for being the first in the nation to empower parents and users with greater control over teen app downloads, and urge other states to consider this groundbreaking approach. Parents want a one-stop-shop to oversee and approve the many apps their teens want to download, and Utah has led the way in centralizing it within a device's app store. This approach spares users from repeatedly submitting personal information to countless individual apps and online services. We are committed to safeguarding parents and teens, and look forward to seeing more states adopt this model.

A February report from the Wall Street Journal found that at least eight other states — Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Kentucky, New Mexico, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia — were considering similar legislation.

Terry Schilling, the president of the American Principles Project, told Blaze News that Utah's new bill is "a very strong law" and a "good first step."

Schilling outlined the major threats facing children online.

"You want to protect children anywhere where people can get access to them," Schilling explained. "The apps are the first main gateway to how you protect children. So that's why I think it's a really great first step."

"Then next, we've got to start protecting kids from porn online directly by forcing the porn companies to do age verification," he continued, noting that 20 states have already implemented this requirement. "You've got to start protecting children and doing age verification for social media accounts in general."

Schilling told Blaze News that he anticipates that other states will soon enforce legislation similar to Utah's to protect children online.

"There is a huge movement of people in America that want to protect kids online, and it's now being translated to the political class — to the politicians and their staff," he said. "That is so critical and important to actually getting things done. You can't just change the culture or people's hearts and minds; you've actually got to legislate it."

Apple and Google did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Both have previously expressed privacy concerns regarding age verification laws for app stores.

Last month, Apple stated that “the right place to address the dangers of age-restricted content online is the limited set of websites and apps that host that kind of content.”

On March 12, Google’s director of public policy, Kareem Ghanem, stated, “These proposals introduce new risks to the privacy of minors, without actually addressing the harms that are inspiring lawmakers to act. Google is proposing a more comprehensive legislative framework that shares responsibility between app stores and developers and protects children’s privacy and the decision rights of parents.”

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