If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. President Donald Trump has now signed into law the Take It Down Act, a measure designed to address the spread of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII), including increasingly prevalent AI-generated deepfakes. While the legislation is being celebrated by both major parties as a victory for online safety, particularly for children and victims of abuse, it has also raised concerns about the potential for overreach, selective enforcement, and the erosion of free speech under the guise of digital protection, particularly because of the broad wording of the bill. The law’s most prominent advocate within the administration has been First Lady Melania Trump, who campaigned heavily for its passage and made rare public appearances to promote it. During the Rose Garden signing ceremony, President Trump invited her to add her signature beneath his, an unusual but symbolic gesture that underscored her role in pushing the legislation forward. “This legislation is a powerful step forward in our efforts to ensure that every American, especially young people, can feel better protected from their image or identity being abused,” Mrs Trump said. In her remarks, she repeated her criticism of AI and social media, calling them “the digital candy for the next generation,” and warned that these technologies “can be weaponized, shaped beliefs, and sadly affect emotions and even be deadly.” President Trump, for his part, appeared to dismiss constitutional concerns. “People talked about all sorts of First Amendment, Second Amendment. They talked about any amendment they could make up, and we got it through because of some very brave people,” he said. Earlier in the year, during his March 4 address to Congress, Trump had signaled his intent to sign the bill. “The Senate passed the Take It Down Act…Once it passes the House, I look forward to signing that bill into law. And I’m going to use that bill for myself too if you don’t mind, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody.” While made in jest, the remark pointed to an unresolved issue: how this law will be enforced, and who will benefit most from it. There is no denying the harm caused by NCII. Victims often struggle to remove intimate images, whether real or AI-generated, while the content continues to spread. The Take It Down Act requires websites to remove flagged content within 48 hours of a complaint. But, just like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), platforms have little way of determining if a complaint is legitimate or being used as a censorship mechanism. That timeline is designed to offer swift recourse to victims. However, the law’s broad wording leaves its applications open to interpretation. The bill defines a violation as involving an “identifiable individual” engaged in “sexually explicit conduct,” without offering a clear or narrow definition of what that conduct entails. This vagueness creates a gray area that could easily be used to suppress satire, parody, or even critical political speech. As we previously reported, a deepfake video that circulated recently depicted Trump kissing Elon Musk’s feet. It went viral across platforms and contained no nudity or explicit content. Under the language of the new law, that kind of content could potentially be classified as NCII. Similarly, a meme showing former Vice President Kamala Harris and her then-running mate Tim Walz reimagined as characters from Dumb and Dumber, engaged in exaggerated physical gestures, was removed from Meta for allegedly being sexual in nature. These examples raise alarms over how the law might be used to erase content not because it is harmful or exploitative, but because it is politically inconvenient or controversial. The law does not require proof before content is taken down. That means a platform can receive a complaint and must act quickly, even if the complaint is baseless. Content that is clearly satire or investigative reporting could be swept up in takedown requests, and the law makes no mention of any way to protect these forms of speech. The complainant is not obligated to demonstrate actual harm, and there is no defined appeals process. This framework creates an internet environment where accusations alone can silence speech. The parallels to the DMCA are troubling. That law, meant to protect copyright holders, has been exploited by individuals and corporations to suppress criticism. The Take It Down Act adopts a similar structure, obligating platforms to remove content without delay or independent verification. The law places enforcement authority with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Giving the FTC the power to decide which takedowns are valid raises new concerns. Content moderation will not be shaped by courts or public standards, but by shifting political winds. The law’s implications for encrypted messaging have received little attention. If platforms are responsible for preventing the spread of NCII, they may be compelled to scan private messages or weaken encryption protocols to comply. This would threaten the security of private communications, including those of journalists, activists, and everyday users. The Take It Down Act fits into a pattern seen in recent internet legislation. Bills are introduced under the banner of safety, written in expansive language, and enforced by regulatory agencies with little accountability. Proposals like the Kids Online Safety Act followed the same model, claiming to protect children while raising new threats to privacy and speech because the wording of the legislation offers no protections. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Trump Signs Take It Down Act appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Calls to Lay Off Biden by the Democrats Fall on Deaf Ears, With Good Reason

WSJ Wonders: How Did Doctors Miss Stage 4 Cancer in Patient #1?

The New York Times is testing a pretty desperate excuse for Donald Trump’s stubborn approval ratings, which aren’t awful, despite the unanimity of mainstream media against him. Cue the sneers about “lower-information voters”! The online headline encapsulated the main excuse: “One Thing Helping Trump’s Approval Rating: Some People Are Not Paying Attention.” The subhead: “Voters were more likely to approve of President Trump’s job performance if they had not been following some of the major news stories of his first 100 days in office, a recent New York Times/Siena College poll found.” Times poll developer Ruth Igielnik settled on a condescending angle to explain away Trump’s supposedly inflated thought still negative approval ratings: People aren’t paying attention to what Trump is doing (or at least not paying sufficient heed to that Trump-hostile filter known as the mainstream press). President Trump’s strategy to “flood the zone” may be working to keep his approval rating from sinking even lower. Voters who have not heard much about some of the many major news events from the first 100 days of Mr. Trump’s second term have a higher opinion of the job he is doing, according to the latest New York Times/Siena College poll. A little under half of the 42 percent of voters who approved of the job Mr. Trump is doing as president said they had not heard much about at least some of the ups and downs of his administration’s decisions. The poll asked voters: “There is a lot happening in the news right now. How much, if anything, have you heard about each of the following things?” The first item on that list was, “A man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador.” That “mistaken” deportation referred of course to the media’s infamous “Maryland man,” Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Later, under the rubric “Tell me whether you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump has handled each of the following issues as president,” the poll queried, “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump has handled immigration?” Igielnik noted triumphantly: Voters were more likely to approve of how Mr. Trump is handling immigration if they had not heard much about the case of Mr. Abrego Garcia, who the administration acknowledges was mistakenly deported. Yet exactly what voters had heard about the case, pro- or anti-Trump, was left aside. Remember that Garcia, an illegal from El Salvador and suspected MS-13 gang member, was the media’s poster boy opposing Trump’s mass deportation scheme. The poll didn’t mention the conviction of the killer of Rachel Morin, a mother of five killed by an illegal immigrant from El Salvador. That’s the wrong kind of immigration news to be following, apparently. Apparently considering this angle a gotcha! against Trump voters, she twisted the knife: Mr. Trump has traditionally done well with lower-information voters, so it is perhaps not surprising that they are more inclined to support his presidency. These voters are also notoriously difficult for pollsters to reach, making it challenging to track their exact impact. And the blitz of news can be hard to follow even for the most engaged voters. In his first 100 days, Mr. Trump signed more executive orders than any other modern president, part of a strategy to make changes at such velocity that people could not possibly pay attention to all of them Late in the piece came the real knee-slapper. Trump voters -- and not anti-Trump voters -- suffer from consuming "media diets" from only one side. Imagine that!  One inevitable complication in understanding how attention paid to stories in the news corresponds with political support is that consumers can design a media diet of information from only one side or perspective. Some outlets pass over entire stories, and the language used by different outlets is sometimes so wildly divergent that people may not even recognize two stories as being about the same topic. It's a "complication" that the Times can't influence people who refuse to put them in their "media diet." 

When it comes to media outlets shamelessly and credulously shilling for the Biden White House, Univision was consistently at or near the top of the list. Let’s take a look back at how they spun the announced results of the final White House physical examination of President Joe Biden. Watch as midday anchors Borja Voces and Carolina Sarassa marvel over the physical and cognitive specimen that was Joe Biden: BORJA VOCES: It should be noted that it is important to remember this, Carolina, that Biden's doctor said that, in the president's annual physical, he says that he has the condition and faculties to fulfill his duty. CAROLINA SARASSA: And we are talking about this because surely you will remember that President Biden's health has been questioned recently, especially after that report from special counsel Robert Hur who decided that he was not going to file charges against the president over those documents that he kept in his office and also at home, because it supposedly said that he did not have mental faculties and that he was a person with a bad memory, so what he says, well, I think the doctor somewhat disproves that theory on the part of the special counsel. VOCES: He also doesn't give many details, for example, in the case of his memory, right? Which is an issue that was talked about a great deal after the special counsel’s report. What is clear is we know that he can fulfill his duties- he can fulfill his duties as president for additional years. SARASSA: It's good- it's good to know, right? Of course, this wasn’t the case. A little over four months after this breathless affirmation of Biden’s unbridled vim and vigor, the president would drop out of the 2024 election subsequent to the catastrophic CNN debate.  It goes without saying that this report didn’t age well. The president’s performance all but confirmed the findings of the now-public Hur tapes, which the anchors sought to discredit. The findings of the Tapper/Thompson book “Original Sin” reveal the extent to which Team Biden fought to hide the truth with regard to the president’s physical frailty. All of this, sadly, stands as a factual basis for why there are so many questions surrounding Biden’s horrendous diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer.  As we said at the time: And so it is that we come to today’s edition of the midday newscast, which were I the type to swear, I’d swear was created for the sole purpose of making their audience dumber. This is the newscast, you’ll recall, that features men wearing skirts, collecting Barbies, or dressing like Barbies. So there is an established track record when it comes to how male virility is portrayed. That is one rationale that I can come up with to explain why they’d report on Biden’s medical exam in such a cavalier manner, reflecting wanton disregard for their viewers’ intellect.  The other, likelier rationale, is that Univision remains a partisan Democrat SuperPAC with a broadcast license, and is trying to exert influence upon their viewers so they ignore what lies before them in plain sight. That President Biden is in obvious physical and mental decline.  We were right then, and we are right now.  

Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg recently held the title of the vice chair of the Democratic Party — but it was short-lived. The Democratic National Committee has now voted to void its election of Hogg and has ousted him from the position just months after he was elected. While some may be shocked by the move, there were some signs that Hogg's position wouldn't last long. In a recent segment on Bill Maher, Hogg explained the issues he was having with the Democratic Party and his new position, telling Maher that he didn’t know if it “made sense to have the gender balance rule anymore in this day and age.” “I want to focus on whoever’s just best at the job at this point, that’s my own view,” Hogg added. Sara Gonzales of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” isn’t surprised. “Probably because he’s really, really bad at this,” Gonzales comments. “He was 25 years old, the youngest ever, and now the Democrats are internally scrambling trying to figure out how the hell to get rid of him.” “They love elevating young people who are unqualified for positions,” senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, Justin Haskins, says. “He must be stirring the pot in a way that they don’t like in order for him to be ousted like this.” “And the rule thing makes no sense, because they just change the rules whenever they want,” he adds. “They don’t ever care about procedure, they certainly don’t care about laws, so for them to come and say this is utter bunkum. He’s probably pissed the wrong person off,” BlazeTV contributor Matthew Marsden chimes in. “Right there, he said a controversial thing and said that ‘all I’m interested in is somebody being competent,’ and you can’t say that,” he continues, adding, “You can’t say that because that is not a qualifier for you in the Democratic Party.” Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Start/stop technology: where your car dies at every red light to help "save the environment." Companies are incentivized to include it, while most drivers hate it. And now Trump is fixing it with the same bureaucracy that started it: the Environmental Protection Agency. One test showed that over 900 miles in a month, the system saved just 0.02 gallons of gas. If you’ve driven a new car in the last decade, you’ve likely encountered this maddening feature known as start/stop technology. You’re sitting at a red light, minding your own business, when your engine suddenly shuts off — only to sputter back to life as you ease off the brake. It’s supposed to save fuel and “fight climate change,” but for most drivers, it’s a headache-inducing nuisance that makes you want to trade in your car faster than you can say “nanny state.” 'Everyone hates it' Which is why we're all thankful for EPA head Lee Zeldin's May 12 announcement that the agency is scrapping mandates on this despised technology, giving drivers a rare win against bureaucratic overreach. Zeldin didn’t pull punches, calling start/stop tech a “climate participation trophy” that “everyone hates.” He even shared an image of the dashboard button millions of drivers have come to know all too well — a circled “A” with the word “OFF” next to it, the first thing many of us press every time we get behind the wheel. “EPA approved it, and everyone hates it, so we’re fixing it,” Zeldin declared. And judging by the sentiment on X, Instagram, Facebook, and others, he’s absolutely right about the “everyone hates it” part. Exaggerated savings Let’s rewind for a moment. Start/stop technology was forced on the automotive industry during the Obama administration’s crusade for stricter fuel economy standards. The concept sounds noble enough: If your car isn’t idling at a stoplight or in traffic, you’re not burning fuel or spewing emissions. Automakers, under pressure to meet the 2012 CAFE standards of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, eagerly adopted the tech. Early studies painted a rosy picture — a 2011 report claimed up to 20% emissions reductions in diesel vehicles during urban driving, and AAA estimated in 2014 that the average driver could save about $179 a year in fuel costs thanks to a 7% boost in fuel economy. But here’s the catch: Those numbers don’t hold up in the real world. Car sales experts have run the numbers and found the savings to be laughably small — one test showed that over 900 miles in a month, the system saved just 0.02 gallons of gas. That’s right, two-hundredths of a gallon. You’d save more fuel by skipping a quick trip to get a coffee than you would with this so-called “green” innovation. Glaring downsides Meanwhile, the downsides are glaringly obvious. The constant on-off cycling feels jarring, especially in stop-and-go traffic. Drivers across the internet (and especially in our comment sections) consistently report that it’s the first feature they disable every time they start their cars. But here’s the rub: Manufacturers, egged on by EPA incentives, made sure the system turns back on by default every time you start your engine. You can’t permanently disable it without jumping through hoops or paying for aftermarket fixes — a perfect example of government meddling making life harder for no good reason. Real safety concerns Beyond the sheer annoyance, start/stop tech poses real safety concerns. Drivers have reported dangerous scenarios where the system creates a delay at the worst possible moment — like when you’re in the middle of a busy intersection, trying to make a left turn, and your engine decides it’s time for a quick nap. Even a half-second lag as the engine restarts can spell trouble, especially in high-pressure situations. For a feature that’s supposed to save a few drops of gas, that’s a risk most of us aren’t willing to take. Wear and tear Then there’s the toll it takes on your vehicle. Starting an engine causes more wear on components like the starter motor and battery than keeping it running. With start/stop tech, a typical commute can involve up to 100 times more engine starts compared to a car without the system. Automakers have tried to address this with more durable parts and advanced lubricants, as noted in a 2022 Autocar report, but the long-term impact on engine life remains a big question mark. Diesel vehicle owners face even more headaches — issues with diesel exhaust fluid systems can trigger “limp mode” or even leave you stranded with a warning that your engine will shut down completely after a few hundred kilometers. For a technology that’s supposed to make driving more efficient, it’s causing an awful lot of chaos. Rare common sense Ditching the mandates is a rare moment of common sense in an era when government overreach often takes precedence over practicality. Drivers in online communities celebrated the news, with many calling it the most annoying “feature” in modern cars. Some suggested manufacturers should offer a simple dealership fix to disable the system permanently — no expensive aftermarket chips required. Others proposed flipping the script entirely: Make the system off by default, and let drivers turn it on if they want to play eco hero. This rollback is part of a larger effort by the EPA to cut burdensome regulations. In March 2025, the agency announced plans to target dozens of rules, including some tied to vehicle emissions. Environmentalists, as expected, are crying foul, claiming that scrapping start/stop tech will lead to more pollution and health risks. But let’s get real — fuel savings of 3%-10% (that's .5 to 2mpg difference) are a drop in the bucket compared to the aggravation and potential safety hazards this tech creates. If the government wants to tackle climate change, it should focus on solutions that don’t make everyday life harder for hardworking Americans. This rollback is also a victory for drivers who just want to get from point A to point B without their car playing eco warrior at every stoplight. Green is not great It’s also a reminder that not every “green” idea is a good one. Drivers have long argued that they should have control over their own vehicles — after all, if you’re shelling out on average $50,000 for a new car, you shouldn’t have to fight a government-mandated feature to drive it the way you want. A simple software update could allow owners to permanently disable the system, but until now, manufacturers have been more interested in pleasing regulators than their customers. Don’t expect the climate activists to back down quietly, though. They’ll likely push for new regulations to replace the ones being scrapped, and automakers will have to find other ways to meet emissions targets — hopefully without resorting to another half-baked gimmick. For now, drivers can look forward to a future where they won’t have to hit that “OFF” button every time they start their cars. It’s a small win, but in a world where common sense often takes a back seat to bureaucracy, it’s one worth celebrating. What’s your take — have you been fed up with start/stop tech, or are you one of the few who actually liked it? Let us know in the comments below, and let’s keep the conversation going.

In a recent video clip, former first lady Hillary Clinton said the quiet part out loud — confirming what conservatives have long believed: Those on the left see the family as a right-wing institution, and they want to replace it. Speaking at the 92nd Street YMCA in New York City, Clinton mocked efforts by Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance to encourage Americans to have children, sneering that this role should be left to illegal immigrants. This isn’t just a policy spat; it’s a glimpse into the left’s deeply held religious belief that the family is the problem. And if we let it, that agenda will destroy us. The left’s war on life and family is not metaphorical. It is real, and it is violent. The left hates the family because it despises everything God stands for. Leftists' agenda is destruction — not creation — and the family is ground zero. The bombing of a fertility clinic on Saturday in Palm Springs, California, is a violent testament to this hatred. The attacker’s alleged manifesto openly declared a “war on the pro-lifers” Why such hostility toward those who protect life? Because the left is anti-life. Leftists oppose the unborn, the elderly, and the nuclear family. They target anything and anyone who dares to affirm that life is a sacred gift from God. One chilling line from the manifesto reads, “We must finally begin the process of sterilizing this planet of the disease of life.” It could not be clearer what the agenda is. The left’s secular cult This only makes sense if we understand that the left’s secular humanist and Marxist worldview is demonic in nature. Secular means leftists reject God and divine law entirely, so they must hate everything that God values. In the absence of God, their humanism leads them to establish themselves as rulers, taking God’s place and seeking every hedonistic impulse. Marxism, finally, is the ideological engine behind their destruction — it cannot build, only tear down. This worldview is evident in their push to indoctrinate children into radical gender ideology and the LGBTQ sex cult. By promoting gender confusion and sexual immorality, the left seeks to prevent children from becoming healthy adults capable of forming families. The family is, after all, the bedrock of any nation. It is the place where values are transmitted and where identities are formed. That’s precisely why the left must destroy it. Leftists want to erase that identity and replace it with a sterile, fragmented one — incapable of bearing children, incapable of passing on faith, culture, or tradition. So when Hillary Clinton says they want to replace the traditional family with other models foreign to our values, believe her. A call to action But we are not without hope. It is our sacred duty to worship God faithfully in our churches, homes, and daily lives. We must marry, have children, and raise them to do the same. This is not just a personal decision; it's a stand against the forces of darkness. In Genesis 1:28, God commands: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it." We must obey this divine mandate. We must also remember the greatness of our ancestors and the works God has done. Just as the Israelites raised stones of remembrance, we must look back and not forget what God has done for us. RELATED: Crushed faces, broken legs, knockout punches just tip of the iceberg in savage attacks on pro-lifers Photo by BRYAN DOZIER/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images We read in Joshua 4:6-7: "We will use these stones to build a memorial. In the future your children will ask you, ‘What do these stones mean?’ Then you can tell them, ‘They remind us that the Jordan River stopped flowing when the Ark of the Lord’s Covenant went across.’ These stones will stand as a memorial among the people of Israel forever.” God has already performed great works in establishing our nation. Many battles have been won. But the work is not finished. The bombing of the fertility clinic is a grim reminder of the stakes. The left's war on life and family is not metaphorical. It is real, and it is violent. Leftists seek to eliminate any opposition to their anti-life, anti-family agenda. But we shouldn’t be intimidated. We must continue to build strong families, pass on our values, and defend the sanctity of life. Only then can we hope to preserve the nation that our forefathers fought so hard to establish. The family is not just a social unit; it is a divine institution, and its preservation is our highest calling.

Cars and guns. In Project Zomboid, these are simultaneously your best friends and your worst enemies. While it’s true that you won’t last long on foot, whenever you go driving, the noise of your engine attracts the undead, and - even though there’s nobody else on the road - it’s inevitable that you end up smashing into a parked car, a roadblock, or a tree. Likewise guns. Without a silencer, all it takes is one shot and the entirety of Knox Country’s former population is on its way to gorge on your neck. With build 42 still in the developmental ‘unstable’ state, The Indie Stone has just put a fresh twist on PZ’s driving and combat. The new Project Zomboid update is a bit of a game changer. Continue reading Major new Project Zomboid update transforms gun combat, cars, and hunting MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best indie games, Best survival games, Best zombie games

Stellar Blade. Love it or loathe it, Shift Up's soulslike was one of the biggest talking points of 2024, earning itself a respectable 81 on Metacritic, with a user score of 9.2. With the game finally making its way to PC - and subsequently being blocked in over 100 countries - the hype is back, and all eyes are looking to a sequel. Fortunately, it seems like we might just get one, as alongside its mysterious 'Project Witches,' Shift Up is gearing up to release an unnamed sequel ahead of 2027, and, putting two and two together, that looks like Stellar Blade 2. Continue reading Looks like Stellar Blade 2 is coming, and it'll drop before 2027 MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Stellar Blade PC, Best soulslike games, Best RPG games