The Guns N' Roses man has been disparaging about the New York band. The post The classic rock band Slash always hated: “Go f*ck yourself” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

It's okay to buy brand-name products, but Walmart has several Great Value options that are just as good or better than the real thing.

by Sean Adl-Tabatabai, The Peoples Voice: Senior WEF advisor Yuval Noah Harari has proclaimed that artificial intelligence is poised to seize control of humanity’s most sacred institutions, including religion itself. Harari, speaking to an elite audience of global leaders and influencers, warned that AI’s mastery over language will fundamentally upend book-based faiths, effectively dethroning traditional […]

The debate over children and social media is often framed as a question of parental control or technological inevitability. It should not be. At its core, this is a moral question about what kind of society we are shaping, what we choose to protect, and what we are willing to sacrifice in the name of convenience, profit, and false notions of freedom. Children under the age of 13 should not be on social media. Not because technology is evil, but because childhood is fragile and social media is not built for moral development. At this stage of life, children are still forming their identity, learning boundaries, and developing the capacity for judgment and self-regulation. Neuroscience is clear: Impulse control, emotional regulation, and critical thinking mature well into adolescence. Social media, by contrast, is designed to exploit impulse, reward comparison, and intensify emotion. It does not educate young minds; it conditions them. What children encounter online is rarely neutral. Content is optimized not for truth, growth, or well-being but for engagement. Shock travels faster than nuance. Sexualized imagery appears long before children can contextualize it. Violence is stripped of consequence. Cruelty is reframed as humor. Validation becomes currency, and self-worth becomes a public negotiation. This is not harmless exposure. It is moral interference at scale. Much of the harm is subtle and therefore dismissed. Children are not typically pushed toward overtly illegal or extreme material. Instead, they are nudged slowly and persistently toward distorted norms about relationships, body image, success, and identity. Algorithms learn what unsettles, excites, or angers a child and deliver more of it. The child does not choose this environment; it is curated around them without their understanding or consent. The result is corruption without awareness. Anxiety, depression, aggression, and social withdrawal often appear later, long after the source has been normalized. There is also a deeper ecosystem at work, one most parents never see. While children may never intentionally access the darkest corners of the internet, the culture shaped there does not remain contained. Exploitation, predation, dehumanization, and nihilism bleed upward into mainstream platforms through trends, language, and aesthetics. By the time this content reaches children, it has been sanitized just enough to avoid scrutiny, but not enough to avoid harm. Children do not need to visit the dark web to absorb its values. Tech companies know this. Internal research, much of it reluctantly disclosed, has repeatedly shown harm to young users. Yet enforcement of age limits remains performative at best. Why? Because early engagement builds lifelong consumers. Attention is monetized. Addiction is profitable. And responsibility is quietly outsourced to parents, who cannot reasonably compete with billion-dollar behavioral engineering. This is not simply a failure of parenting. It is institutional negligence disguised as innovation. Some argue that banning children under 13 from social media infringes on freedom or limits digital literacy. That argument confuses preparation with exposure. We do not teach children to swim by throwing them into open water. We do not prepare them for adulthood by immersing them in adult environments prematurely. Childhood is not a training ground for markets; it is a protected space for moral formation. A ban is not censorship. It is a boundary. We already draw such lines in countless areas of life: labor laws, age restrictions, content ratings, and consent standards. These are not arbitrary. They exist because we recognize that some environments are incompatible with healthy development. The cost of ignoring this reality is visible everywhere: rising youth anxiety, fractured identity, diminished attention spans and a generation struggling to distinguish authenticity from performance. These are not isolated trends. They are symptoms of a culture that has confused access with progress, and profit with purpose. A society that allows children to be shaped by anonymous influence, algorithmic manipulation, and unaccountable power cannot later claim innocence when those children grow into distrustful, disconnected adults. Moral development cannot be crowdsourced. It must be protected. Banning children under 13 from social media is not a retreat from modern life. It is an assertion of responsibility. The question is no longer whether harm exists. The question is whether we are willing to act or whether we will continue to sacrifice childhood on the altar of convenience and greed, then pretend we did not see it coming. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.   The post Why Children Under 13 Should Be Banned From Social Media appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Jimmy Carr took down a loudmouth woke audience member during one of his stand-up routines, using the opportunity to dismantle communism for the evil it breeds. Carr started his reply to the heckler by stating, "Capitalism is a terrible system, apart from all f***ing others." "Communism's a great idea, wrong...

Federal officials ordered emergency responders to scrub a common weather term from disaster warnings because they feared it would trigger internet memes about immigration enforcement. When Memes Trump Safety Warnings Department of Homeland Security officials issued informal guidance Thursday directing FEMA personnel to eliminate the word “ice” from public communications about a major winter storm. The directive came as forecasters warned of potentially devastating ice accumulations stretching over 2,000 miles, with some southern areas expecting a quarter-inch or more. DHS officials worried that references to ice would spark online mockery and confusion with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the controversial federal agency sharing the same three-letter acronym. The timing proved particularly awkward as hundreds of thousands of Americans faced power outages lasting days. JUST IN: President Trump and Kristi Noem's FEMA are SURGING for this winter storm, teeing up– 250,000 meals– 400,000 liters of water– 30 generators– Shuttle services stationed in Louisiana, Texas, Pennsylvania and Georgia pic.twitter.com/l97V2VGLfF — RightLine (@RightLineNews) January 23, 2026 The Evidence in Plain Sight FEMA’s Thursday night social media post warned of “Heavy snow, freezing rain & cold temps” without mentioning ice. Friday’s message on X followed the identical pattern, referencing “heavy snow, freezing rain and dangerous cold” while avoiding the forbidden term entirely. The substitution appeared throughout FEMA’s communications as the storm approached. FEMA responded to CNN’s reporting with a defensive statement dismissing the story as “clickbait” and insisting the agency would use “correct and accurate descriptors” to communicate clearly. The denial rang hollow given the observable pattern in FEMA’s own messaging. The Meme Culture Context The Trump administration has embraced meme culture in official communications with unprecedented enthusiasm. Earlier that same week, the White House account posted a fabricated image related to arrests in Minnesota following protests involving ICE operations at a church service. When questioned about posting fake content, a White House spokesperson delivered a remarkably candid response: “Enforcement of the law will continue. The memes will continue. Thank you for your attention to this matter.” This statement established the administration’s position that meme-based messaging represents legitimate government communication rather than an aberration requiring correction or apology. The Structural Tensions Both FEMA and ICE operate under the Department of Homeland Security umbrella, creating an organizational structure where DHS leadership oversees both disaster response and immigration enforcement. This arrangement explains why DHS officials felt authorized to direct FEMA’s communications strategy. However, the incident exposed internal tensions between political leadership prioritizing messaging optics and technical experts focused on public safety. One source with knowledge of the guidance warned that avoiding clear language could leave Americans vulnerable during emergencies. The source noted that a straightforward phrase like “Keep off the roads if you see ice” would be easy for the public to meme. The Public Safety Calculation The substitution of “freezing rain” for “ice” may qualify as technically accurate meteorological terminology, but it creates potential comprehension problems for average citizens unfamiliar with weather jargon. Emergency communications succeed when they convey immediate, intuitive understanding of danger. Everyone understands ice on roads means treacherous driving conditions. “Freezing rain” requires additional cognitive processing to translate into actionable awareness. During a crisis affecting nearly three dozen states simultaneously, that translation delay could prove costly. The precedent also raises questions about whether other straightforward emergency terms might face political review before reaching the public. Homeland Security officials have urged staff at FEMA to avoid using the word “ice” in public messaging about the massive winter storm barreling toward much of the US under concerns that the word could spark confusion or online mockery. https://t.co/SbM6wSig9A — WXOW 19 News (@WXOW) January 23, 2026 The Dangerous Precedent An anonymous source captured the core problem succinctly: “I think it’s a dangerous precedent to set. If we can’t use clear language to help prepare Americans, then people may be left vulnerable and could suffer.” This represents more than bureaucratic word games or political theater. Emergency management depends on public trust that warnings reflect genuine threats rather than politically filtered messages. When citizens suspect disaster communications prioritize avoiding embarrassment over maximizing safety, they may discount future warnings. The incident demonstrates how political sensitivities can infiltrate technical decision-making processes that should remain insulated from such considerations. Sources: Don’t say ‘Watch out for ice’: FEMA warned storm announcements could invite memes – KESQ Don’t say ‘Watch out for ice’: FEMA warned storm announcements could invite memes – AOL

Given that The Black Crowes’ lead guitar spot has been held down by Jeff Cease, Marc Ford, Audley Freed, Luther Dickinson, and Isaiah Mitchell, you could say that when Argentinian-born gunslinger, Nico Bereciartua, joined the band in 2022, he had a lot to live up to. But Nico Bereciartua had a bit of a leg up, as he had already played with Crowes’ co-leader and co-founder, Rich Robinson’s solo band. Elsewhere, Nico Bereciartua also played with Robinson in The Magpie Salute, which, for those keeping score, featured Marc Ford. Still, the volatility of the gig, expanse of the stage, fan The post An Interview With Nico Bereciartua Of The Black Crowes appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

His truck was the vehicle equivalent of Frankenstein, a green mish-mash of dents and dings and disjointed panels. The 2000 Chevy Silverado became something of a famous eyesore in South Bend, Indiana, earning sideways glances and second looks wherever Mo Riles went. “I thought it was A.I. and didn’t know if it was real,” one […] The post Elderly Man’s Busted Up Truck Was Joke Meme Until Stranger’s Heartwarming Idea to Crowdfund a New One appeared first on Good News Network.

The debate over children and social media is often framed as a question of parental control or technological inevitability. It should not be. At its core, this is a moral question about what kind of society we are shaping, what we choose to protect, and what we are willing to sacrifice in the name of convenience, profit, and false notions of freedom. Children under the age of 13 should not be on social media. Not because technology is evil, but because childhood is fragile and social media is not built for moral development. At this stage of life, children are still forming their identity, learning boundaries, and developing the capacity for judgment and self-regulation. Neuroscience is clear: Impulse control, emotional regulation, and critical thinking mature well into adolescence. Social media, by contrast, is designed to exploit impulse, reward comparison, and intensify emotion. It does not educate young minds; it conditions them. What children encounter online is rarely neutral. Content is optimized not for truth, growth, or well-being but for engagement. Shock travels faster than nuance. Sexualized imagery appears long before children can contextualize it. Violence is stripped of consequence. Cruelty is reframed as humor. Validation becomes currency, and self-worth becomes a public negotiation. This is not harmless exposure. It is moral interference at scale. Much of the harm is subtle and therefore dismissed. Children are not typically pushed toward overtly illegal or extreme material. Instead, they are nudged slowly and persistently toward distorted norms about relationships, body image, success, and identity. Algorithms learn what unsettles, excites, or angers a child and deliver more of it. The child does not choose this environment; it is curated around them without their understanding or consent. The result is corruption without awareness. Anxiety, depression, aggression, and social withdrawal often appear later, long after the source has been normalized. There is also a deeper ecosystem at work, one most parents never see. While children may never intentionally access the darkest corners of the internet, the culture shaped there does not remain contained. Exploitation, predation, dehumanization, and nihilism bleed upward into mainstream platforms through trends, language, and aesthetics. By the time this content reaches children, it has been sanitized just enough to avoid scrutiny, but not enough to avoid harm. Children do not need to visit the dark web to absorb its values. Tech companies know this. Internal research, much of it reluctantly disclosed, has repeatedly shown harm to young users. Yet enforcement of age limits remains performative at best. Why? Because early engagement builds lifelong consumers. Attention is monetized. Addiction is profitable. And responsibility is quietly outsourced to parents, who cannot reasonably compete with billion-dollar behavioral engineering. This is not simply a failure of parenting. It is institutional negligence disguised as innovation. Some argue that banning children under 13 from social media infringes on freedom or limits digital literacy. That argument confuses preparation with exposure. We do not teach children to swim by throwing them into open water. We do not prepare them for adulthood by immersing them in adult environments prematurely. Childhood is not a training ground for markets; it is a protected space for moral formation. A ban is not censorship. It is a boundary. We already draw such lines in countless areas of life: labor laws, age restrictions, content ratings, and consent standards. These are not arbitrary. They exist because we recognize that some environments are incompatible with healthy development. The cost of ignoring this reality is visible everywhere: rising youth anxiety, fractured identity, diminished attention spans and a generation struggling to distinguish authenticity from performance. These are not isolated trends. They are symptoms of a culture that has confused access with progress, and profit with purpose. A society that allows children to be shaped by anonymous influence, algorithmic manipulation, and unaccountable power cannot later claim innocence when those children grow into distrustful, disconnected adults. Moral development cannot be crowdsourced. It must be protected. Banning children under 13 from social media is not a retreat from modern life. It is an assertion of responsibility. The question is no longer whether harm exists. The question is whether we are willing to act or whether we will continue to sacrifice childhood on the altar of convenience and greed, then pretend we did not see it coming. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.   The post Why Children Under 13 Should Be Banned From Social Media appeared first on The Daily Signal.