For the past several decades, church attendance has become an increasingly female-oriented activity. Church leaders have either given into that fact and no longer try to find a way to get men back to church, or they have spent untold amounts of money on focus groups to find out why men no longer attend, or how they can lure back those men who have strayed. But now, the tide has seemingly turned, according to a new report from the Barna Group, with more men attending church, while the number of women attending is in decline. Barna found that more men (43%) than women (36%) report attending church on a weekly basis. Barna writes, “For decades, women have outnumbered men in church attendance and have often led the way in spiritual participation. But a significant shift is occurring in American Christianity that demands attention: Women—particularly younger women—are attending church less frequently than men. This reversal isn’t just a numerical milestone; it signals a broader cultural and spiritual turning point.” While the decline in female attendance—especially among younger women—is a concern which I will address, the rise in male attendance and leadership in church attendance and spiritual leadership is something to celebrate. Why? Because as the Apostle Paul writes in Ephesians 5, a man is called to be the spiritual leader of his wife and children. When men abdicate that role, which so many have done over the past 60 or so years, families deteriorate, and children wander away from the faith. And what is especially encouraging is that the growth in male church attendance is happening mainly with millennials and Generation X—those ranging in age from the late twenties to late fifties—with the biggest growth among married fathers with children under 18. Much of this can probably be attributed to the number of ministries geared toward men, such as Promise Keepers, that have sprung up over the past few decades, as well as a greater awareness by church leaders that there was a “male problem” when it came to church attendance and spiritual leadership. On the other hand, it is the steady increase of single mothers and single never married women that is leading the female decline. For those who are still single, the researchers cite these women feeling isolated in congregations that cater to nuclear families and thus unable to find community within the church. A good friend of mine and his wife know several young women in their twenties-early thirties who feel they are no longer welcome in the church because they are single—not so much by choice—but because they have not found the right Godly man yet, or circumstances have left them as a single parent—whether it be through divorce, or in some cases, death. Now, many of these issues these women are not of their making, thus it is still imperative that the church be able to meet their need for community and spiritual growth as well. So, the question begs itself: How does the church continue to encourage men—particularly husbands and fathers—to continue returning to church, while also addressing the feeling of women who feel they are increasingly socially isolated in the church? Citing the Apostle Paul again, he provides us with the road map, writing in 1 Corinthians 9:22: “To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.” So, while it is difficult, the church, as Paul writes, needs to find a way to be all things to all people—without compromising the truth —regardless of their station in life. I, for one, am particularly glad to see men, along with the emphasis on families, coming back to church because it is a very positive development for future generations and our country. Let’s celebrate the return of men, and their spiritual leadership, and all the good that will bring. But let’s not leave our sisters behind, like we left men behind for decades, and paid a great spiritual and cultural price for our neglect. We need to learn from past mistakes, not repeat them. Valuing everyone and making sure they have a spiritual community to call home is what will truly be a cultural and spiritual turning point for all people—men and women alike—that will bring about positive transformation for not just them, but for our society as well. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post After Decades of Female Dominance, Men Are Coming Back to Church appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Russian lawmakers are moving forward with a proposal that would make the country’s biometric and e-government systems the mandatory gatekeepers for online age verification. If implemented, the measure would tie access to adult or “potentially harmful” content directly to a person’s verified state identity, dissolving any remaining expectation of online anonymity. The plan, discussed on October 28, is being marketed as a child protection initiative. Officials insist it is designed to keep minors away from dangerous material, yet the scope of what qualifies is remarkably broad. According to TechRadar, one official included pornography, violent or profane videos, and even “propaganda of antisocial behavior” in the list of restricted content. The main part of the proposal is the use of the “Gosuslugi” digital services portal, which already functions as Russia’s main interface for state verification. This system connects directly to the Unified System of Identification and Authentication (ESIA) and the national Unified Biometrics System (UBS), both of which are controlled by the government. State Duma deputy Anton Nemkin, a former FSB officer, suggested that these networks “could be used to verify age without directly transmitting passport data to third-party platforms.” In effect, the state would become the universal intermediary between citizens and the internet. Legal experts specializing in digital rights argue that this initiative continues a long-established trajectory. Since 2012, when Russia began constructing its online censorship framework under the pretext of protecting minors, each new regulation has chipped away at personal privacy while expanding government visibility into everyday digital life. The current proposal also fits neatly within Moscow’s broader strategy of “digital sovereignty.” Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Information Policy Andrei Svintsov recently claimed that every Russian internet user will lose their anonymity within “three years, five at most,” TechRadar reported. This vision aligns with another state project approved in June, the development of a national “super app” integrating digital ID, government services, and payment systems, which would even let users “confirm one’s age to a supermarket cashier.” If this legislation passes, it would not simply limit access to adult material. It would require citizens to authenticate their identities through ESIA each time they view anything categorized as adult content, no matter how loosely defined that label becomes. It would build a permanent record linking verified identities to private online behavior, giving the state sweeping insight into personal consumption habits. While governments in other parts of the world have tested different age verification systems, Russia’s model stands apart for its complete reliance on centralized, state-run biometric databases. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Russia Moves to Mandate State Biometric ID for Online Age Verification appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Google has started making major adjustments to the US version of its Play Store after losing its antitrust case against Epic Games, marking the first time the company has been legally forced to alter how its app marketplace works. Developers now have expanded freedom to communicate with users and handle payments outside Google’s systems, breaking from a long-standing model that kept nearly all transactions within Google’s control. Under the new rules, app makers can share direct download links, talk about pricing or payment options, and accept transactions through other billing services. They are no longer required to use Google Play Billing or set prices based on whether that system is used. The update represents a significant change in how app distribution and payment flexibility are handled in the US as part of a court-ordered compliance process. The legal fight began in 2020 when Epic Games tried to sell Fortnite items without going through Google’s payment setup. That move led to a broader challenge over how Google manages Android app distribution. While Epic’s similar complaint against Apple failed, the court determined that Google had taken actions that limited the development of rival app stores. After an unsuccessful appeal earlier this year, Google was left with little choice but to follow the court’s decision. According to new support documents, developers in the US can now direct users to external websites for app downloads or payments, bypassing the Play Store entirely. This could result in lower prices for users, since Google’s service fees, which can reach 30 percent, will not apply when outside billing systems are used. The company emphasized that these changes apply only to the US market and will remain in place “while the US District Court’s order remains in effect.” Judge James Donato’s ruling is set to expire in November 2027. Despite complying, Google is still fighting to overturn the judgment. The company argues that keeping the Play Store tightly controlled helps maintain user safety and consistency in the app ecosystem. Recently, it asked the Supreme Court to block the lower court’s order, warning that it could disrupt the Android marketplace. The Supreme Court declined to freeze the order but left the door open for a full review, and Google has now filed a petition seeking that appeal. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case and sides with Google, the company could restore many of its former restrictions. If not, additional changes will follow. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Google Implements Major US Play Store Changes After Losing Epic Games Antitrust Case appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. It began as a plan to “keep children safe online.” It has become a national realization about how far the government can reach into the digital lives of its citizens. The UK’s Online Safety Act has turned into a case study in how a law written for protection can give no protection and end up with mass surveillance. When peers in the House of Lords met this week to examine its effects, they sounded little like guardians of youth safety, and it was easy to tell they don’t have enough self-awareness to realize they’ve helped unleash a monster. More: UK Children’s Commissioner Calls for VPN Digital ID Checks Lord Clement-Jones, the Liberal Democrat technology spokesperson, noted that young people are already avoiding the law’s controls. VPNs, he said, are now used on a “widespread” scale, which “risks rendering age-assurance measures ineffective.” The statement revealed a central problem: the people being protected are already finding their way around the digital ID rules. They always will. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales expressed the issue plainly. Calling the Act “very poorly thought-out legislation,” he told The House magazine: “We will not be age-gating Wikipedia under any circumstances, so, if it comes to that, it’s going to be an interesting showdown, because we’re going to just refuse to do it. Politically, what are they going to do? They could block Wikipedia. Good luck with that.” Wales’s refusal is part of a natural broader discomfort with the idea of regulating access to information through identification. Under the new law, platforms must verify users’ ages through ID checks or similar systems. Millions of users will have to prove their identity before they can post or browse. Privacy groups describe this as a national identity program introduced without open debate. With data breaches still frequent across both government and corporate systems, the setup creates an environment where every login carries potential exposure. VPN use has increased in response. These tools, once associated with cybersecurity professionals, now serve anyone who prefers to maintain privacy online. They allow people to move through the internet without revealing personal data. Baroness Liz Lloyd, speaking for the government, said there was “limited evidence on children’s use of VPNs,” while assuring the Lords that the issue was being monitored. “There are no current plans to ban the use of VPNs, as there are legitimate reasons for using VPNs,” she said. She also added, “The Government has made it clear that nothing is off the table when it comes to keeping children safe.” Her statement aimed to settle the discussion but left open the possibility of future restrictions. While lawmakers debated, Ofcom, the communications regulator, began broadening its authority into artificial intelligence and algorithmic oversight. Its chief executive, Melanie Dawes, told the Financial Times: “Have they changed the way the algorithms work so that children don’t get that material shown to them? That’s a big focus for us.” Platforms such as YouTube, Roblox, and Facebook must now demonstrate that their recommendation systems comply with Ofcom’s standards. “You may see some enforcement action from us in the next few months if we don’t start to get the answers that we’re looking for on the algorithmic side of things,” Dawes said. Dawes confirmed that ChatGPT falls within the Act’s scope, as does X’s chatbot, Grok. “X is a service that we regulate, and chatbots will often be user-to-user services and therefore caught under the act,” she said. This interpretation grants regulators power to supervise not only what users post, but how the underlying systems organize and deliver content. It marks a move from moderating speech to moderating design, something that a couple of US states are also trying to do. Dawes described this change as a correction for the early period of social media. “Safety needs to be considered up front,” she said, because “the industry did not get this right 20 years ago when social media was first launched.” Every “safeguard” written into the Act reduces the possibility of anonymous participation online. Anonymity, once normal, is increasingly treated as a problem. People who prefer privacy must rely on VPNs or encryption and hope those tools remain permitted. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UK Lords Debate Impact of VPNs on Censorship Laws appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. YouTube has begun deleting videos that show how to install Windows 11 without a Microsoft account or how to load the newest Windows 11 update (version 25H2) on unsupported PCs, claiming these tutorials break its “harmful or dangerous content” policy. The platform issued strikes to several creators, including two well-known tech YouTubers: Britec09, who has nearly 900,000 subscribers, and CyberCPU Tech, whose audience exceeds 300,000. Both creators say YouTube’s enforcement relied entirely on automated systems, which removed their videos and rejected their appeals within minutes. More: Microsoft Makes It Harder to Set Up Windows 11 Without a Microsoft Account Britec09 explained that YouTube gave him a strike for a video showing how to install Windows 11 25H2 on a decade-old computer. He shared footage of his YouTube dashboard confirming that the appeal had been rejected and said the company refused to specify what rule was violated. He criticized the process as opaque and said that the so-called “support chat” feels like talking to a robot instead of a human being. CyberCPU Tech reported a nearly identical experience. On October 26, his tutorial on bypassing the Microsoft account requirement was removed, and YouTube labeled it “harmful or dangerous.” He said his appeal was denied just 45 minutes later, after the video had already drawn more than 80,000 views. Two days later, his second tutorial, on installing the Windows 11 25H2 update on unsupported hardware, was taken down, and this time the appeal was rejected in under a minute. Both creators argue that their content is educational and that showing users how to work around installation limitations hardly qualifies as dangerous. CyberCPU Tech pointed out the absurdity of YouTube claiming that “creating a local account in Windows could cause serious physical harm or death.” He added that because his appeal was handled by AI, “there’s simply no reasoning with a calculator.” By late October, both channels had begun calling attention to what they describe as the growing problem of AI-driven censorship on YouTube. Britec09 revealed that YouTube’s own AI-powered video ideas tool was recommending topics identical to the ones that had earned him a strike. He called this a clear contradiction; YouTube’s AI suggests the very content that another AI system later punishes. He tied this to YouTube’s recent shift toward automation, referring to news that the company is offering buyouts to employees as it reorganizes around AI. CyberCPU Tech echoed these concerns, noting that 94% of video removals in 2025 were handled entirely by AI with no human involvement, according to YouTube’s own transparency reports. He argued that the company’s harmful or dangerous content policy was being applied as a catch-all category, sweeping up harmless tutorials that should fall under its educational exceptions. Britec09 added that the confusion over what is or isn’t allowed has left many creators afraid to upload at all. He warned that if YouTube begins scanning older videos under these new interpretations, “a lot of tech channels will be gone, years of hard work gone in a blink of an eye.” Both creators insist that if YouTube wants creators to follow the rules, it needs to make those rules clear and not let unaccountable AI systems dictate enforcement. They see this trend as part of a broader erosion of open discussion on major platforms. “If creating a local account in Windows 11 is against YouTube’s policies,” CyberCPU Tech said, “then what kind of videos are we allowed to make anymore?” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post YouTube Faces Backlash After AI Removes Windows 11 Tutorials for Unsupported PCs appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. It’s one thing to bake cupcakes for the school fundraiser. It’s another to find yourself explaining your Facebook posts to a judge. Yet that’s precisely where Kari Cochran, a Wyoming mother with a stubborn streak and a social media account, ended up. Twice. For the uninitiated, Kari isn’t your run-of-the-mill parent who just grumbles in the car line. She once sat on the Sweetwater County School Board, where she learned that speaking your mind can make you the most talked-about person in the faculty lounge. Her habit of asking uncomfortable questions about district leadership might have made her unpopular, but it also made her the kind of parent who doesn’t disappear quietly when things get messy. Cochran’s online posts, sharp enough to make a superintendent wince, were her way of keeping the school district accountable. “Publicly accused [the] petitioner of unprofessional and unethical conduct,” one court filing complained. In other words, she said things out loud that people in small towns usually only whisper over coffee at the diner. Her criticism didn’t sit well with everyone. Two people connected to the district, Assistant Superintendent Nicole Bolton and Laura Libby Vinger, the wife of Superintendent Josh Libby, decided the comments had crossed into stalking. They filed civil petitions to try to stop her from speaking. It didn’t work. Both cases were tossed out this year. Circuit Court Judge Michael Greer dismissed Bolton’s petition in August, reminding everyone that public officials are “subjected to public scrutiny.” (If you’re paid by taxpayers, you don’t get to hide from them.) A magistrate later dismissed Vinger’s case, too. Cochran was, understandably, relieved. “Parents, students, or staff members should never feel that they should be silenced or punished for standing up for what’s right,” she said to The Center Square. Her lawyer, Parker Jackson of the Goldwater Institute, had a less sentimental view. If Cochran had lost, he explained, she might have been banned from attending district events or even school board meetings. “It essentially would’ve turned these school officials into roaming censors where, wherever they didn’t want Kari to be, they could show up and force her to leave,” Jackson said. Cochran’s battle didn’t begin with Facebook posts. It began with heartbreak. Her son Joran, a graduate of Rock Springs High School, died by suicide in 2023 after being bullied. It’s the kind of loss that rearranges your life completely. She resigned from the school board afterward, but she didn’t stop pushing for better mental health support and accountability in the district. When she asked to see her son’s school records, the district refused. Then, as if to make her point for her, the board introduced a rule restricting what topics citizens could address during public comment. So Cochran did what most parents do when the microphone is taken away: she turned to Facebook. Her posts gained traction. They also drew ire. The day a sheriff showed up with not one but two stalking petitions, Cochran said she felt “complete fear,” unsure what she’d done wrong. “Complete fear” seems like an understatement for having your free speech hauled into court by the very people you’re criticizing. The rulings didn’t erase the months of stress. Cochran said the ordeal drained her and took away time she wanted to spend with her daughter before high school began. But her victory sends a message: criticizing your school district may make you unpopular, but it isn’t a crime. As Cochran put it, she hopes no other parent has to go through the same ordeal. Which, knowing how most school board meetings go, might be optimistic. Still, in Wyoming this year, one mother’s persistence reaffirmed a very old idea that the right to speak up, even loudly and inconveniently, is still worth protecting. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Wyoming Parent Wins Free Speech Lawsuits Against Sweetwater County School Officials appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

History doesn’t just move forward — it echoes. Karl Marx once said history repeats itself, “first as tragedy, second as farce.” He meant it as a jab at 19th-century France, where Napoleon’s nephew attempted to replicate his uncle’s revolutionary drama not on the battlefield but rather through bureaucratic spectacle. Nevertheless, Marx’s insight fits modern America. Our cycles of unrest and outrage have become predictable theater — each act beginning with moral panic and ending in absurdity.The summer of 2020 was a national trauma. The killing of George Floyd was a tragedy that radicals turned into revolution. Riots swept through more than 2,000 cities, torching businesses, destroying neighborhoods, and leaving dozens dead. Egged on by the race-baiting activists at Black Lives Matter, mobs looted stores, assaulted police, and terrorized communities.The line between tragedy and farce is thinner than ever — and this time, we can’t afford to play the fool.Media outlets downplayed the carnage as “fiery but mostly peaceful.” Political leaders joined the chorus, afraid to confront the mob. Corporate America rushed to signal its virtue by taking the knee, pouring billions into “racial equity” schemes that enriched activists but divided the country.The real tragedy wasn’t just the damage — it was the betrayal. Spineless mayors and governors surrendered their cities. Police were handcuffed, budgets gutted, and criminals emboldened. The riots hollowed out public trust, replacing civic order with cultural resentment. America’s guardians became scapegoats, and justice itself became negotiable.From riot to parodyFive years on, the rebellion has devolved into a pathetic sideshow. Antifa’s latest “resistance” — a handful of masked agitators harassing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents as they carry out long-overdue deportations — feels less like revolution and more like performance art.Their vandalism is designed for TikTok, not for change: laser pointers at officers, graffiti on walls, choreographed scuffles for social media. It’s a boutique insurgency — staged in deep-blue enclaves, broadcast for dopamine hits, and forgotten the next day.The chaos of 2020 burned cities. The tantrums of 2025 barely dent a precinct wall. The tragedy has become farce.Still, both movements spring from the same poisoned root: a left-wing ideology that despises America’s foundations. BLM targeted police as enforcers of “white supremacy.” Antifa brands border agents as fascists for upholding immigration law.Both rely on the same tactics — decentralized mobs, anonymous online organizing, and emotional manipulation amplified by social media. Both seek power through grievance, not through persuasion. And both reveal how progressive rage, unmoored from reality, becomes self-parody.In 2020, rioters burned precincts and seized city blocks. They demanded “defund the police” and got it — along with record crime rates and broken neighborhoods. In 2025, their heirs spray-paint slogans and livestream tantrums. Their only victory is visibility.The digital theater of rageSocial media turned riots into content. In 2020, doctored clips of “police brutality” fueled nationwide hysteria, empowered anti-cop lunatics, and enriched grifters. Today, the same algorithms push Antifa’s posturing, turning vandalism into viral spectacle.These platforms profit from outrage. They amplify emotion, suppress context, and reward hysteria. The result is a feedback loop of performative politics — activism as cosplay.After years of indulgence, government crackdowns have finally returned. ICE operates under firm executive backing. Local police departments no longer hesitate to enforce the law. The radicals, once protected, now find themselves exposed and outmatched.But even as law enforcement regains its footing, the left’s playbook remains unchanged. The grievances are repackaged, the slogans recycled, the media coverage predictable. It’s cultural Marxism with a TikTok filter — ideology as entertainment.Farce doesn’t mean harmless. Every protest turned stunt still corrodes civic life. Each viral act of defiance feeds distrust in law, borders, and the rule of order itself.The radicals thrive on illusion: fake oppression, fake urgency, fake rebellion. Meanwhile, real Americans bear the cost — higher crime, divided communities, and institutions too timid to defend themselves.RELATED: The left’s costume party: Virtue signaling as performance art Photo by serazetdinov via Getty ImagesThe lesson we refuse to learnThe tragedy of 2020 proved that surrendering to the mob invites ruin. The farce of 2025 shows that ridicule alone isn’t enough to defeat it. Both demand resolve — the courage to confront lies, restore order, and defend the institutions that safeguard freedom.History doesn’t stop repeating itself; it stops being repeated. Whether America ends this cycle depends on whether its citizens choose firmness over fear, enforcement over appeasement, and truth over spectacle.Enough with the doctored outrage porn. The burning question is whether we’ll tolerate this clown show recycling into catastrophe or crush it with resolve that honors real American values.The line between tragedy and farce is thinner than ever — and this time, we can’t afford to play the fool.

House Speaker Mike Johnson: 'Republicans Fight for the People. Democrats Fight for Power.'

'This Is So Brilliant': James Woods Brings Out a Timely Quote of Thomas Sowell

Bessent Says SNAP Relief 'Could Be' Coming Soon As Democrats Continue to Put Politics Over People