Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices

Conservative Voices

@conservativevoices

Eric Swalwell in Epstein Files.
Favicon 
conservativefiringline.com

Eric Swalwell in Epstein Files.

The following article, Eric Swalwell in Epstein Files., was first published on Conservative Firing Line. Eric Swalwell is such a fool. He demanded that all names in the Epstein filed be released without redaction. That’s exactly what the DOJ did- and it turns out his name is in that list. Can you read? The bill YOU SIGNED demanded the DOJ list the every person referenced in the files. pic.twitter.com/ul6atEChBK — … Continue reading Eric Swalwell in Epstein Files. ...

YouTube
Are men useless?

YouTube
She JUST Moved Back From France To Say This...

Favicon 
spectator.org

Our Don, Our Paisan

A close friend, whom I’ll leave nameless for obvious reasons, is an expert on all-things Italian, as are most Italians. He knows a lot about the Mafia. He’s actually related to Francis Ford Coppola, director of every guy’s favorite film, The Godfather. He grew up in Brooklyn and spent time in the Mott Street area of Little Italy. In a curious but related twist, he knows a lot about Donald Trump, having watched and even studied the man for decades. He doesn’t really like Trump, though he has long been intrigued by him and voted for him three times as the lesser of evils, given sordid characters like Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sleepy Joe, and the cackling Kamala. One late evening, smoking cigars on my porch, my friend shared a fascinating observation on Donald Trump that held me spellbound. He compared the Donald — the Don — to a Mafia don. In tantalizing detail that I can’t do justice to here, he related how Trump, like a Mafia don, rewards those who are good to him, favors those who do him favors, but, conversely, blasts those not good to him and strongly disfavors those he believes betray him. My friend waxed almost lyrical with this alluring analogy by making several informed comparisons to “Don Corleone” of The Godfather, plus other real-life Mafia kingpins he had studied. I was captivated by the comparisons. Naturally, many readers will construe this analogy as a terrible insult. The progressive will bark: “Correct! Trump is a crime boss!” But the progressive should not rush to judgment. In fact, much can be said about — and in favor of — many Mafia dons. To that end, I would commend to readers the brilliant insights of the late Luigi Barzini, a dear friend of this magazine and our founder, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. Luigi and Bob were tight, with our founder spending much time with Luigi’s famiglia in Italia. Decades ago, Luigi published his classic, The Italians, a must-read for anyone interested in Italian culture. Among his splendid insights, Barzini was indispensable on the Mafia, making nuanced distinctions between crime bosses, rackets, the American mob, and more traditional Mafia in Sicily and elsewhere (such as Calabria, where my people hail from). As Barzini noted, many old high-ranking Mafia were “good fathers, good husbands, good sons; their word is sacred; they fastidiously refrain from having anything to do with spying, prostitution, drugs, or dishonest swindles. They never betray a friend.” Moreover (and this describes a Mafia figure my father grew up with), “They are always devoted churchmen, who give large sums to the local parish or to the deserving poor. Many have sisters in convents and brothers in holy orders.” Some of these men viewed themselves as the “only defense against anarchy,” noted Barzini, as the “only valid law” in parts of Sicily. The most skilled of them “prefer diplomacy rather than force, speak in a low voice and prefer to employ old-fashioned forms of address…. Their politics are conservative.” Oh, yes. Their politics are conservative. “They want to keep things as they are,” wrote Barzini. They want to conserve. They defend the family, the community, the Church, tradition, and civilization. “The first nucleus of the Mafia is the family,” wrote Barzini. They adore and support their children, their family — alla famiglia. (Trump is the same way.) Oftentimes, the Mafia don was a force for good, especially in cultures rife with government corruption. Oftentimes, the Mafia don was a force for good, especially in cultures rife with government corruption. Though far from being angels — many being outright criminals and even murderers — often the don did good. Italians found much to appreciate among these maintainers of order in their community. Of course, conservatism is first and foremost about conserving order. Order is the highest virtue for the conservative. The conservative seeks what the likes of Russell Kirk, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, and Thomas Merton referred to as “ordered liberty.” In many Italian villages, the Mafia don was the enforcer of order. “Order has to be preserved,” wrote Barzini. “Justice must be assured.” A good don prevented chaos, and the best did so “without undue recourse to violence” and “scattering corpses.” Such dons were respected (and frequently feared), sometimes even revered, such as the legendary Don Vito Cascio Ferro or the “Sicilian patriot and good Catholic” Don Calo Vizzini, whose funeral was worthy of a prince. The Mafia head held a position of honor. Thus, the honorific title: Don. As Luigi Barzini explained, “Don is the corruption of the Latin dominus. It means a little more than signore. It is used for noblemen, gentlemen of means, priests, and Mafia leaders.” That brings me back to Donald Trump. I share all of this now because of a recent action by America’s Don that Italians really appreciate. President Trump is planning to install a statue of Christopher Columbus on the White House grounds. (Read: Aubrey Harris, “Trump to Honor Columbus With Statue at the White House. Good.”) Remarkably, the work is reportedly a “reconstruction” of a statue unveiled in Baltimore by President Ronald Reagan but pushed into the city’s harbor by assorted maniacs in the lunatic summer of 2020. What are Trump’s thoughts? White House spokesman Davis Ingle explained, “In this White House, Christopher Columbus is a hero. And he will continue to be honored as such by President Trump.” Hilariously, this line was reported as an explicit echo of “Tony Soprano,” the mob boss in The Sopranos. In a well-known scene replayed on YouTube, Tony and his wife talk to their son about his screwball teacher’s claim that if Columbus were alive today, he would be put on trial for war crimes. “He discovered America!” Tony snaps. “He was a brave Italian explorer, and in this house, Christopher Columbus is a hero!” Bravo, Tony! In Tony’s house and Trump’s house, Columbus is a hero. Of course, he was a hero in the house of every Italian American, including my family on my mother’s side. My relatives were intensely proud of Columbus. My grandfather and uncles, like Bruno Carnovale and Joe Labrozzi, played cards and drank wine at the local Sons of Italy and served as members of the Knights of Columbus. Every Catholic parish to this day has a Knights of Columbus chapter. The explorer was our fratello, an Italian native son, the first of a long line of paisanos to come to our blessed shores. Of course, his real name was Cristoforo Colombo, from Genoa, before the dunderheads of Protestant America changed his name to sound like a WASP. They Anglicized damned near everything. Consider some famous Italian American crooners: The cool-sounding Dino Paul Crocetti became the lame “Dean Martin.” The jazzy Anthony Dominick Benedetto became “Tony Bennett.” The darling Concetta Rosa Maria Franconero became “Connie Francis” (Our Dan Flynn said that “Connie Francis” sounded like the name of an old waitress at a truck stop). (Read: Paul Kengor, “Bobby and Connie: A 1950s Romeo and Juliet.”) Couldn’t these blockheads leave our lovely language alone? Gosh, they even Anglicized Roma as “Rome.” Is it really that hard to spell and pronounce “Roma”? Anyway, I digress. Columbus is a hero. Donald Trump, who loves America, also loves the great Italian who discovered America. Fittingly, the Trump International Hotel at One Central Park West sits at Columbus Circle, where the NYPD also sits in an effective second precinct. Crass, classless dirtbags walk by and flip the middle finger to both the hotel and statue (I’ve witnessed that on multiple occasions, as have my little kids). Trump wants such statues to remain. He wants them re-erected, to the point of salvaging a reconstructed statue at the White House. Those of us with Italian heritage are grateful for this favor from our Don. For that, the Donald, our Don, is our paisan. READ MORE from Paul Kengor: Confederate Liberals A Haunt of Demons Shuts Its Doors … The Fall of Margaret Sanger’s ‘Clinic’ Mike Reagan, Twice Adopted, Rest in Peace

Favicon 
spectator.org

Suing Social Media Won’t Save the Children — But It Could Silence Everyone

Logging onto Facebook in the mid-2000s or opening Instagram in its early days felt less like entering a casino and more like flipping through a scrapbook. Users saw posts in chronological order. If you wanted to see something specific, you searched for it using keywords. You followed people you knew and saw their posts appear on your timeline. Your social media feed reflected these choices when it presented you with the pages you liked and intentionally engaged with. The online world was your domain. Today, that world is largely gone. In a landmark trial unfolding in Los Angeles, lawyers for a now-20-year-old woman, identified as Kaley, argue that Instagram and YouTube intentionally engineered addictive platforms that harmed her mental health, CNN reported. Her attorney, Mark Lanier, described the apps as “digital casinos,” telling jurors that the swipe of a finger resembles “a handle of a slow machine.” (RELATED: Parents Have Everything They Need to Keep Their Children Safe Online) “This case is about two of the richest corporations who have engineered addiction in children’s brains,” Lanier said, pointing to features like infinite scroll, autoplay, likes, and beauty filters as dopamine-triggering mechanisms. Kaley’s lawsuit, which is one of 1,500 similar cases, claims she developed anxiety, body dysmorphia, and suicidal thoughts after years of heavy social media use. According to her legal team, she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine. Phone records show that at 16, she once spent more than 16 hours in a single day on Instagram. Lanier cited internal documents, including a Meta strategy memo suggesting the company must “bring them in as tweens” to “win big with teens.” He argued that digital platforms intentionally created addictive “loops.” Meta and YouTube strongly dispute those claims. YouTube’s attorney, Luis Li, told jurors flatly: “Ms. GM, Kaley GM, is not addicted to YouTube.” He cited internal data showing she averaged 29 minutes per day on the platform since 2020 and watched only about four minutes per day of autoplay-recommended videos. “Folks, infinite scroll is not infinite,” Li argued. Meta’s lawyer, Paul Schmidt, pointed to Kaley’s difficult upbringing and therapist testimony suggesting social media was not the “throughline” of her mental health struggles. Both companies emphasize safety features, parental controls, “take a break” reminders, and options to disable likes or autoplay. There is no doubt that social media algorithms can hook users — not just kids, but adults too. Anyone who has opened an app to check one notification and resurfaced to reality 45 minutes later knows this. The modern social media feed is no longer chronological; it is curated by opaque recommendation systems optimized to maximize engagement. This is a deliberate effort to keep you scrolling, to keep you watching, and to keep you coming back for more. Algorithms are not designed to enrich your life. They are designed to increase time-on-platform. Social media companies are not charities. It takes money to run these digital platforms, and of course, their executives are incentivized to rake in the millions of dollars that come. Their business model depends on advertising. The longer your eyes stay on the screen, the more ads you see. The more precisely your behavior can be predicted (through data-tracking tactics), the more valuable you are to advertisers. Algorithms are not designed to enrich your life. They are designed to increase time-on-platform. This may entertain users at first, but soon, users will realize they are easily attracted to emotionally draining content that keeps them staring at screens for hours. In the early days, users built their own digital worlds. Social media was a place to connect with friends you know in real life, to share photos, and to express yourself. Back then, the only way we curated our feed was by choosing whom to follow. We opted in by making these choices and searching for content. Today, we are spoon-fed content based on what the algorithm predicts will hold our attention as a good background for ads. This includes text-posts, photos, and videos that inspire outrage, aspiration, validation, and envy. In a matter of moments, social media users ride an emotional rollercoaster, twisting and turning through a hyper-commercialized theme park of self-branding galore. This experience is increasingly shaped by forces we do not see. In a business-driven branding culture, social media is the manipulative host of our escapism. And yet, as concerning as these dynamics are, the lawsuit against Meta and YouTube should fail if it attempts to regulate user content. Digital platforms are not necessarily blameless, and they are absolutely fertile ground for psychological damage. However, the legal precedent at hand is far more dangerous. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 shields platforms from liability for user-generated content. Judge Carole Kuhn has instructed jurors that they cannot hold the companies liable for allowing or recommending third-party content. That protection is foundational to online free speech. If platforms could be sued for the speech of their users, the likely result would not be a safer Internet. It would be a far more censored and politically motivated one. If any reform comes from this wave of litigation, it should target not user content but algorithmic design. There is a meaningful distinction between hosting speech and engineering compulsive engagement systems. The former implicates the First Amendment; the latter implicates product design and consumer transparency. If courts or lawmakers intervene, they should focus on requiring algorithmic transparency. Platforms should be compelled to disclose, in clear language, how recommendation systems prioritize content. They should offer a simple, default chronological feed with algorithmic amplification turned off that allows users to manually opt in if they choose. Choice is the key. Right now, most users are automatically placed into algorithm-driven feeds optimized for engagement. A genuine reform would reverse that default. Let the baseline be chronological based on who you’re following. Let users search for what they want before the social media platform serves up what it assumes they want to see to stay longer. Let them decide if they prefer an algorithmic feed designed to “optimize” their experience before they unknowingly fall through this trapdoor. Personal responsibility still matters. We choose to download these apps. We choose to open them. We choose how much time we spend on them. Parents bear responsibility for monitoring their children. Adults are responsible for their own habits. Users are capable of taking control of their own behavior and social media feed right now, but doing so requires discipline and deep knowledge of what user experience control mechanisms and data collection permissions these platforms are hiding in their settings. (RELATED: EU Censorship Metastasizes) Yes, social media platforms are constructed to be sticky. Of course they are. Companies want customers. They want advertising dollars. They want user growth. This is neither shocking nor new. Television networks chase ratings. Casinos design floors without clocks. Grocery stores place candy at eye level for children. The answer to manipulative design is not to torch the principle of free speech. It is to restore user control. Technology will continue to evolve as human weakness remains constant. The solution isn’t to sue away temptation, hoping for the death of social media. It is to demand transparency and restore meaningful user choice without dismantling the legal protections that safeguard free expression. Reform the algorithms if you must, but don’t tamper with what people can say on the Internet. READ MORE from Julianna Frieman: Why Has Nancy Guthrie’s Case Become America’s Only Story? Everyone Watches a Different Super Bowl Guilt Isn’t Genetic Julianna Frieman is a writer who covers culture, technology, and civilization. She has an M.A. in Communications (Digital Strategy) from the University of Florida and a B.A. in Political Science from UNC Charlotte. Her work has been published by the Daily Caller, The American Spectator, and The Federalist. Follow her on X at @juliannafrieman. Find her on Substack at juliannafrieman.substack.com.