What would make you get a Neuralink brain-computer interface? Most people respond with an automatic, “Nothing.” But the assumption is that a brain chip would be unnecessary, a way to level up, to become smarter or stronger. Here’s what we all suspect: Once everyone agrees to an implant, it’s only a matter of time before chips are getting hacked, commercials are mandatory, and money gets involved. God forbid, let’s say you’re diagnosed with early-onset dementia. Your mind will deteriorate slowly until your wiring completely abandons you. But what if a brain-computer interface could preserve your memories and cognitive functionality? Or let’s say you’re paralyzed and getting a neural implant could restore any damaged nerves and allow you to move again. This is the hope that led 30-year-old Noland Arbaugh to become the first human to receive a Neuralink brain-computer interface. A swimming accident damaged his spine, leaving him a quadriplegic. And so far, the technology has made life at least a little easier. The process hasn’t gone entirely smoothly, but the implant has given Noland more freedom of movement. He can also use his mind to play chess and Civilization 6. Now, a second patient has been greenlit. Only Homer Simpson would buy the first-generation flying car, right? Not if you’re desperate enough. Here’s a hypothetical that is murkier than the previous two: What if your child died and you had the chance to download his consciousness and implant it into a brain-dead human? Or into some sort of android, when robotic technology is advanced enough? For many of us, this isn’t a logical or moral dilemma but a spiritual one. Tackling dementia and paralysis concerns the restoration of a living body. But when death comes into the equation, we are forced to ask, “What about the soul?” For decades, futurist Ray Kurzweil has balked at the idea that humans have souls that should be left alone, untouched by human hands. Who could have guessed that Kurzweil, like so many other brilliant nerds, would be toppled by Joe Rogan’s Socratic method? As our own Peter Gietl put it, “Joe Rogan might be the perfect foil for a futurist and woo peddler like Kurzweil. He knows just enough about these subjects to be dangerous but also asks questions with an Everyman logic that is a perfect antidote to cut through the vague science this man spews.” How can we understand evil within the context of artificial intelligence? Maybe we shouldn’t be worried about artificial intelligence but rather artificial consciousness. Or, even more harrowing, artificial spirituality. The boundaries of our social cosmos are already distinctly psychological. Where previous generations were afflicted by vast unknowables, comical ignorance, and inanimate technology, we’re lost in the squall of the digital unconscious, the connected brain, and data centrality — total interconnection by digital means. That’s without any devices implanted. A brain chip is internal. Social media is external and much less invasive. Yet look at the damage that it has caused, to children specifically, affecting notions of play, body image in pre-teen and teenage girls, and even sexuality and ideas regarding gender. Elon Musk is calmly but direly urging us to start preparing for a world full of AI that’s smarter than us. I’m a big fan of Elon and his role in what Jonathan Haidt has described as the “techno-democratic optimism” unique to America in relation to tech. But in this situation, it’s important to remember that the man owns the brain chip company. We all know that the dignity of any revolutionary medical tech is at the very least vulnerable to abuse. Plastic surgery didn’t begin with breast implants. Customization is an integral part of our new world. But where is the limit? What about genetic engineering? What about designer babies? These technologies are no longer plot devices in science fiction. It’s going to happen in real life, as people are increasingly willing to medicalize their lives. Here’s what we all suspect: Once everyone agrees to an implant, it’s only a matter of time before chips are getting hacked, commercials are mandatory, and money gets involved. We’re already witnessing widespread “de-materialization,” where physical objects are becoming obsolete as the world becomes increasingly digitized. You see this in the subscription model. You used to own movies. If you didn't, you rented a physical copy. Music used to be owned on physical media too. Now these items are accessed via subscription. Then there are the political implications. The brain is the source of all human behavior. If someone figured out how to control it, he could manipulate society to his advantage, fiddling with our species’ most dangerous tendencies and habits. We’ve moved past biopolitics — the elites’ control of our bodies. Now we live in an era of psychopolitics, where elites grip not just the politics, not just the body, but the total of the mind of citizens. Neuro-technologic reality also changes immediately. No one can keep up any more. The transformation of our habits, thoughts, beliefs, emotions, and actions is hard to prove and even harder to monitor. So why would we hand over our most important possessions — our brains — to a dubious invisible network, the same network that facilitates pornography and BuzzFeed? The language of online is structured mostly as exclamatory and imperative slogans. Declarative statements often serve as a Trojan Horse of discourse that is actually combat. It is part of the reason that everything seems so hard to resolve. The pace of life is daunting. We don’t even fully realize it. But we feel it. Things are different and we don’t know why. Inject a silicon chip into your brain, and there’s no way to know how much it has changed you. Our cultural illness is neuro-technological. It’s something we signed up for, and it sends constant updates. An automated disease manifested through emotion but guided by some unknown could lead or already has led to neuro-totalitarianism. On the other hand, it would be cool to order DoorDash without having to move at all, so sign me up!

A poison pill added to what was once common-sense legislation is, once again, making a well-intentioned bill radioactive. Bipartisan agreement about the need to keep kids safe online led to the introduction of the Kids Online Safety Act, which originally empowered parents to approve apps used by their children. The latest revisions, made to appease the progressive left, predictably substitute the judgement of federal bureaucrats for that of parents and their local elected officials. What was once a proposal to protect kids from abuse online will now open the door for the Federal Trade Commission and the government to impose the political and cultural values of unelected bureaucrats on children. Lina Kahn and the FTC’s unelected federal officials have no business parenting our children. In its current form, the bill does not deserve support from conservatives in Congress. Better options are available as states take more innovative approaches to the problem. This version of KOSA is not the answer. Originally introduced in 2022, KOSA appropriately gave state attorneys general the authority to enforce provisions about what content social media companies are responsible for blocking for children. Instead, the left demanded a one-size-fits-all approach in which their appointed political allies at the federal level are authorized to override parents. The outcry against the original bill from far-left and LGBTQ activist groups was predictably hyperbolic. These groups demanded and stirred opposition while branding the original draft dangerous. Though they nominally agree that children should not be exposed to inappropriate content online, they wanted kids of all ages to be able to access information about their sexuality. Consequently, blatant concessions to these LGBTQ groups take enforcement power away from state attorneys general. Now, the Federal Trade Commission would enforce KOSA’s duty of care provisions. Biden-appointed FTC Chairman Lina Khan is already under fire for inappropriately managing the commission to promote her personal left-wing ideologies — an allegation documented in a recent House Judiciary Committee report. Kahn and the FTC’s unelected federal officials have no business parenting our children. The new version of KOSA emboldens government overreach. Fashioned by Democrats, it completely surrenders to the pressures of these progressive groups, putting politics ahead of the safety of our children. State attorneys general already manage consumer protection for their states. Why would we shift this work to unelected bureaucrats in Washington? Decisions around what our children see online should be enforced by state officials who are elected and held accountable by the voters. One common-sense proposal leaders in my home state recently called on Congress to adopt would require parents to approve their children’s app downloads at the app store before they can even start using an app. This would empower parents and ensure they have oversight over all apps — from well-known platforms such as YouTube and Instagram to more dubious platforms like Whisper, an anonymous social media platform, or Stranger Talks, which is an app literally built for kids to talk with strangers. Giving parents a simple, streamlined solution to approve the apps their teens download within the app store is the best approach lawmakers can take to keep our children safe online. Ultimately, parents — not the government — should have the say over their children’s online usage. Congress would be better off writing legislation that puts parents in the driver's seat. Congress should focus on requiring parental approval of teenage app downloads at the app store, not legislation that enables federal bureaucrats with political agendas to determine what is appropriate for our children. KOSA in its current form is toxic.

As the 2024 Congressional Baseball Game entered its final inning earlier this month, the Republicans led the Democrats by a score of 21-10. With a man on first, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) came to bat. The pitcher, Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Penn.), checked the runner and fired home. The ball tailed away, off the plate, and Scalise took ball one. The next pitch ran outside, as did the one that followed. With a count of 3-0, Deluzio went up and in with the pitch. But the majority leader held up, taking the four-pitch walk and making his way to first base without unshouldering his bat. Scalise applies the same prudent and restrained approach that he displayed at bat to the regulation of artificial intelligence. He made as much clear the day after the GOP’s victory at Nationals Park. Scalise said he doesn’t “believe that Congress should pass any AI-related regulations, establishing a new party position on the most important issue in tech policy,” Punchbowl News reported. Even staunch libertarians, who favor minimal regulation of AI, advocate some regulation and, in Scalise’s phrase, filling “gaps in the laws” where necessary. Washington is strongly attracted to action for its own sake, often tempted to impose stringent state control on emerging technology. However, Scalise recognizes that America’s technological dominance and the accompanying prosperity largely depend on lawmakers refraining from interfering in the market. “Ultimately, we just want to make sure we don't have government getting in the way of the innovation that’s happening,” Scalise said. “That’s allowed America to be dominant in the technology industry, and we want to continue to be able to hold that advantage going forward.” Often, to score runs or simply to maintain the lead, lawmakers must keep their proverbial bat on their shoulder. The alternative perspective — which favors regulatory action for its own sake — stems from the fallacy that something — anything — must be done. These action-obsessed anti-Scalisers believe that AI’s development must be centrally planned. For example, Sen. Corey Booker (D-N.J.) recently lamented that, should it fail to keep pace with European regulators, America will fall behind Europe technologically. In fact, ample data demonstrates the superiority of America’s light-touch regulatory style. And, as a rule, European regulators serve as a poor model to follow — in any policy area. Often, when free marketeers criticize manifestly inapt proposals, pro-regulation lawmakers deride them for supposedly rejecting all regulatory action. Buried in this ridicule lies a disastrous underestimation of the cost associated with faulty regulation. Also, the charge is false. Even staunch libertarians, who favor minimal regulation of AI, advocate some regulation and, in Scalise’s phrase, filling “gaps in the laws” where necessary. Many ills — even many that implicate legitimate governmental interests — have no discernable public policy solutions. History offers countless cases in which would-be technocrats’ efforts at central planning produced unintended consequences far worse than the pre-existing status quo. What’s more, many fears that drive efforts to hyper-regulate AI anticipate future ills with little chance of materializing — e.g., a supercomputer takeover, to take one worry of President Joe Biden. However, the basic laws of economics, psychology, and human association apply as much to the digital world as to the physical one. As Calvin Coolidge once said, “If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure nine will go in the ditch and you have only one to battle with.” Silent Cal would presumably have opposed hamstringing American innovation in the name of combatting those nine ditch-bound troubles. Nonetheless, both in Washington and in statehouses nationwide, too many lawmakers have credulously embraced the “something, anything” ethos. Proposals for licensing regimes, new agencies, and speech-crushing regulatory reform have swarmed Congress. Meanwhile, state lawmakers are now considering hundreds of AI-related bills. Consider Colorado’s Senate Bill 21-205, which Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed in May. “I appreciate the goals of the sponsors to begin an important and overdue conversation to protect consumers from misunderstood and even nefarious practices in a burgeoning industry and the bipartisan efforts to bring this bill to me,” reads Polis’ signing statement. Yet the rest of the statement reads like a veto letter. In it, Polis outlined the bill’s myriad flaws. “Government regulation that is applied to at the state level in a patchwork across the country can have the effect to tamper innovation [sic] and deter competition in an open market,” Polis wrote. Reading this, one would expect Polis to have vetoed the bill outright, but instead (to get something — anything — enacted) Polis signed it with a plea to ameliorate SB 21-205’s flaws during its two-year implementation period. A home run may be preferable to a walk, but if the batter sees no pitches near the zone, the choice often becomes one between a walk and a strikeout. Wishing for another viable alternative will not produce one. Wishing for the knowledge problem not to obtain in AI policy-making — or that half-baked AI regulations will not generate unintended consequences — will not make it so. America’s technology sector surpasses that of any other country. Washington should not blow that lead.

We’ve struck a nerve with Google because we are reporting the facts. But we won’t back down.When asked what type of government the Founding Fathers settled on during the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin poignantly said, “A republic, if you can keep it.” That latter part was a warning to us who are charged with keeping the republic. He knew how difficult it would be because freedom always comes at a high cost. It requires every generation to take up the responsibility of pursuing virtue, of defending what is true and what is right. If we fail in that responsibility, it is only a matter of time before our hard-won freedom slips through our fingers, and our republic falls with it.Companies like Google are trying to wrest your power at the ballot box by restricting the information you are allowed to see. They have an agenda.We take this task very seriously at Blaze Media. That is why we continue to make content that gives you the truth about what is happening in our republic, no matter the cost. In our new Blaze Originals documentaries, we have given you the hard truth about how the Biden administration is facilitating the border crisis, how politicians are profiting from insider trading at your expense, and how election laws are being written to make it easy for elections to be stolen.It’s critical that you have all the facts when heading to the ballot boxes — especially during this crucial election year. But Google has other plans. It’s decided that seeing content directly related to the election isn’t in your best interest.The last several Blaze Originals documentaries we released and attempted to promote on YouTube have been rejected, and their distribution and reach have been suppressed. Google claims our content spreads misinformation or election advertising, but that isn’t true — and we have the receipts. Sometimes, we run ads to make sure our content surfaces in an algorithm that tries to hide it, but we can’t even do that now.So far, four episodes have been suppressed:“The Real Story of Colony Ridge,” which reveals the fastest-growing illegal-immigrant community in Texas.“Texas vs. the Feds,” which tells the real story of the Texas border standoff.“Bought and Paid For,” which exposes the shady stock trading that's making politicians filthy rich.“Voter Fraud Exposed,” which details how elections could be stolen.Why is this happening more and more often? Here’s what I think: We struck a nerve, and Google is nervous. We're reporting the facts, confirmed by our boots-on-the-ground investigation. We know it's true because we got our information straight from the source.This isn’t an automated system at work. Those at Google are picking and choosing what content gets promoted and what doesn’t.This is part of a silent coup to usurp your freedom. A republic is upheld by the consent of the governed — that means you. You give consent with your vote over what the government can and cannot do. But to give consent freely, you must be informed. That’s why the First Amendment is the first amendment in the Bill of Rights. Without freedom of speech, without freedom of the press, there is no informed consent of the governed. And that’s exactly what’s happening.Companies like Google are trying to wrest your power at the ballot box by restricting the information you are allowed to see. They have an agenda for how the country should be run, and they are actively suppressing content — like ours — that may inspire someone to vote against that agenda on Election Day.Revolutions don’t have to happen in the streets anymore. They can be silently initiated through algorithms and digital censorship. They don’t need to get rid of the electoral system. They can control it by controlling what you see, without you even knowing it.So, what can we do? This content needs to be seen. What they suppress is exactly what needs to be spread far and wide, and we need your help. We need people like you, who see through the lies and are willing to do their own homework. Your support makes it possible for us to continue our work. We need you to help us get these documentaries out there.If you haven't subscribed to BlazeTV+, please subscribe now. If you’re already a subscriber, share this offer with friends and family so they can access the truth we’re exposing in these documentaries.We are offering a seven-day free trial plus $30 off your first year of BlazeTV+ so you can watch every documentary released so far. This is the best deal we’ve ever offered because there’s no other way you’ll see what we release — they’re making sure of it.We can’t do this without your support. Subscribe now at BlazeTV.com/glenn and use promo code GLENN30TRIAL.If you’ve been wondering how to make a difference this election, ensuring others are informed is the most important way. Our republic depends on it. Subscribe now and share with your friends.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.

In the summer of 1924, the Leopold and Loeb murder case triggered a media frenzy and a debate over whether anyone can truly know what’s inside the mind of a cold-blooded killer

Buyer's Remorse: Almost Half of US EV Owners Want to Switch Back to Good Ol' Internal Combustion Engines

RFK Jr. Offers Wild Deal to Biden: 'Whomever Is Least Likely to Beat Donald Trump Will Withdraw'

CNN Cuts Off Independent Media From the Presidential Debate and Demos How the Mic Muting System Works

As President Biden and President Trump prepare for the debate Thursday, Republicans are trying to manage expectations for their presumptive nominee after years of highlighting the incumbent’s physical…