If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Roblox is expanding its use of AI-based facial scanning and digital ID to estimate user ages, a move the company claims will improve safety but one that also reflects a growing trend toward normalized digital surveillance and identity checks across online platforms. This latest rollout will apply the technology to all users who engage with voice or text chat, using scanned selfies. The company says this method, combined with government ID verification and parental consent checks, provides a more “accurate” assessment than the longstanding approach of asking users to input their birth year. But these shifts are not just about age brackets. They are part of a wider shift in how identity is being tracked, monitored, and enforced online, often with little meaningful public debate about the long-term implications. More: Louisiana’s War on Roblox Turns Into a Digital ID Crusade Roblox’s announcement comes alongside a new partnership with the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC), through which the platform will adopt standardized content ratings from global regulators. As Roblox refines its content policies and privacy rules, it does so under pressure from a regulatory climate that is rapidly normalizing digital identity checks and biometric surveillance. Governments in the UK, Mississippi, and several other US states are moving toward laws that compel platforms to verify the ages of users by introducing digital ID and removing online anonymity. These policies are being framed as safety measures, especially to protect children, but they also lay the groundwork for broader surveillance regimes and ID-based access controls across the internet. Some platforms have already exited regions where compliance with these laws requires invasive practices. Roblox, on the other hand, appears to be leaning into the trend. In July, it launched video-based age verification to bar children under 13 from features like unfiltered chat. It also restricts teens from making “trusted connections” with others unless verified through contact syncing or QR codes, a system that blurs the line between digital and physical identities. Roblox says it will soon introduce additional features designed to reduce interactions between adults and minors. It already deploys tools such as Roblox Sentinel, an AI-driven system that scans user activity. Other monitoring systems are built to detect and remove rule-breaking servers in real time. Parental controls and content filters are also part of the company’s pitch to families. Despite these efforts, reports and lawsuits continue to pressure the company. Legal complaints filed in Louisiana, Texas, Pennsylvania, and California argue that predators continue to exploit the platform to reach minors, which is true. The question now is not just how well these tools protect young users, but what kind of internet they are building in the process. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Roblox Expands AI Facial Scanning and Digital ID Amid Growing Government Pressure appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Comic writer Graham Linehan’s arrest by British police has drawn sharp criticism from the US State Department, which says the move signals a worrying shift away from democratic freedoms in the UK and across Europe. The 57-year-old comedy writer was detained at Heathrow Airport by armed officers after returning from a trip to the United States, questioned over three controversial posts he shared on X. The posts, which involved criticisms of transgender ideology, have caused public outrage over the expanding reach of British speech laws. Reacting to the incident, a US State Department spokesperson warned The Telegraph that such actions reflect a broader crackdown on expression in countries that claim to uphold liberal democratic values. “The United States believes that protecting freedom of expression is critical to any democratic, self-governing nation – this includes protecting voices that challenge the status quo or the government.” Linehan, best known for co-creating the TV series Father Ted, said he was treated “like a terrorist” and held in a cell for half a day. His detention followed a string of posts, one of which urged people to take action if a trans-identified male entered a women-only space. Another mocked a Pride march, and a third expressed open hostility toward trans activists. US officials rejected the idea that Linehan’s statements justified arrest. “This speech is neither ‘threat’ nor ‘violence’ but the basis for democratic governance in free societies,” the spokesperson added. The arrest is only the latest sign of growing friction between Washington and its closest allies over the tightening of speech laws. Much of the concern centers around legislation like the UK’s Online Harms Bill, which allows authorities to penalize content deemed harmful or offensive, even when no law has been broken. “Vague prohibitions against ‘grossly offensive’ or ‘harmful’ content are overly broad and restrict protected expression, including political, religious, and civic speech,” the US State Department noted. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post US State Department Blasts Graham Linehan UK Arrest as Break from Democracy appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

In one of the clearest cases of “It’s (D)ifferent” in recent memory, we respectfully submit for your consideration the substantive contrast in interviews of Supreme Court justices by former CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell. On the one hand, her fawning over the “historic” Ketanji Brown Jackson, and on the other: her insistence that Amy Coney Barrett deliver “adequate checks” against President Donald Trump. And it is important to recall the extent to which O'Donnell absolutely fangirled over Justice Jackson. O'Donnell's obsequiousness extended to "history", with poetic callbacks: KETANJI BROWN JACKSON: This was my favorite poem growing up in high school. The Ladder of St. Augustine, because it talked about this value of hard work. NORAH O’DONNELL: To understand Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, consider the poem she’s kept close for decades. JACKSON: “The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained by sudden flight, but they, while their companions slept, were toiling upward in the night.” It’s like my favorite summary of how I felt that I was the person who was going to toil upward in the night. Always. O’DONNELL: Toiling upward, as Henry Wadsworth Longfellow put it, is how the 116th justice says she made history. ...solicitation of attacks on President Trump: O’DONNELL: One of the hardest issues the Supreme Court tackled this year involved Donald Trump. The question, could the former president face criminal charges for his efforts to undo his 2020 election defeat to Joe Biden. In July, the court ruled 6 along ideological lines that trump was entitled to immunity for official acts as president. Jackson dissented. You were concerned about broad immunity? KETANJI BROWN-JACKSON: I was concerned about a system that appeared to provide immunity for one individual under one set of circumstances, when we have a criminal justice system that had ordinarily treated everyone the same. ...solicited attacks on colleagues... O’DONNELL: By one analysis, Justice Thomas has accepted $4 million in trips, travel and gifts over the past two decades. Is that inappropriate? ...and went over the top in its framing of Jackson as "historic": JACKSON: This is Justice Thurgood Marshall’s mantel clock. O’DONNELL: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will likely be on the court for decades, but she’s already been sown into history. JACKSON: It was handmade by a woman from Texas. I have it right across from my desk. O’DONNELL: And the opinions from her desk will shape the nation, just as she hopes her story will. Your family went from segregation to the Supreme Court... JACKSON: Yes, in one generation. O’DONNELL: Yeah, it is the story of the promise of America. Barrett got none of that. Although they are separate of each other, these two interviews are deeply intertwined as part of a continuing operation to delegitimize the Supreme Court (along with the rest of our institutions), and should be viewed as a whole. The first substantive question accuses Justice Barrett of “shifting the court to the Right”: IT'S (D)IFFERENT: The broadcast version of Norah O'Donnell's interview with Justice Amy Coney Barrett is a far cry from her interview of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The first question accuses ACB of "shifting the Court to the right", suggesting divisiveness: O'DONNELL: I… pic.twitter.com/FJhpXns4XO — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) September 7, 2025 I don't recall O'Donnell asking Jackson about her jurisprudence, or about the shift that her nomination represented. THAT interview was all about "historic" gushery, and handwringing over President Donald Trump. In a low blow, O'Donnell then tries to twist Barrett's wistfulness over leaving South Bend into regret over joining the Court:  O'Donnell turns ACB's wistfullness over her former life in South Bend into an implied regret over joining the Court: O'DONNELL: You wrote that the last several years have not been easy since you joined the Supreme Court. You say “I'm happiest with my old friends who knew me… pic.twitter.com/BIfPElpdoG — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) September 7, 2025 After the emotional isolation play, O'Donnell shifts to judicial hardball questions. The first, naturally, is on abortion: O'Donnell tries to confront ACB with the Dobbs dissent and gets SCHOOLED: O'DONNELL: I want to read something just from the minority dissent on the Court. BARRETT: Sure. O'DONNELL: For Dobbs, about what essentially the effect of overturning Roe v. Wade would be. And that… pic.twitter.com/tVLQ0InKWi — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) September 7, 2025 Barrett fed the question right back to O'Donnell in ways that call back to her confirmation hearings. From the media's reporting on abortion post-Dobbs, you'd think it was abolished outright (we wish) as opposed to being sent back to the states. Barrett reminds O'Donnell of the various laws and referenda that have passed since Dobbs. We then get into the portion of the interview where O'Donnell tries to prod her target into previewing opinions on executive power and tariffs, only to get shut down: Here's three minutes of O'Donnell prodding ACB to preview her opinions on executive power and on tariffs, and getting shut down: pic.twitter.com/qs3Z1Vx7sr — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) September 7, 2025 O'Donnell had to have known that this was the answer she was going to get out of Barrett. We all remember Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's famous "no peeks" at her confirmation hearings. As the final portion of the broadcast interview shows, this is all about pressure and isolation: The end of the Barrett Interview makes its purpose clear- this is a pressure operation. O'DONNELL: And it's that philosophy that makes Justice Barrett the most closely-watched justice in this upcoming term… BARRETT: I think the Constitution is about promise -- O'DONNELL: And… pic.twitter.com/hAfkpU0GLy — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) September 7, 2025 No Thurgood Marshall clock here, huh? Whereas O'Donnell waxes hopeful for a very long Jackson term on the Court, she emits dread over the idea of a long Barrett tenure.  And this is the tale of two interviews: on the one hand, Norah O'Donnell strives to cement Ketanji Brown Jackson as a wise, historical figure and repository of the nation's hope. On the other, O'Donnell casts Barrett as a divisive, partisan figure worthy of dread who may also serve a long tenure on the Court. It really IS (D)ifferent. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the interview as aired on CBS Sunday Morning on September 7th, 2025: JANE PAULEY: You might call it a conversation of supreme importance between Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Amy Coney Barrett and our Norah O’Donnell. O'DONNELL: Do you get recognized a lot on campus? BARRETT: More on campus, I think, just because I know more people. O'DONNELL: Mmm-hmm. Washington is sort of a different beast though. BARRETT: Washington is a different beast. O'DONNELL: Supreme Court justice Amy Coney Barrett feels at home on Notre Dame's campus in South Bend, Indiana. BARRETT: Another kind of history that develops is judicial precedent. O'DONNELL: She had been teaching full time for nearly two decades. DONALD TRUMP: This is a momentous day for America. O'DONNELL: Until she was selected by president Donald Trump in 2020 to serve on the Supreme Court. I wonder: would you acknowledge that since you joined the Court, replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court has shifted to the right? BARRETT: You know, I think shifting to the right or shifting to the left, I think those are other people's labels and that's other people's game. I don't think of it that way. I just decide the cases as they come. I have been criticized by both the right and the left. O'DONNELL: Justice Barrett's legal philosophy and personal story are the focus of her new book Listening to the Law.  You wrote that the last several years have not been easy since you joined the Supreme Court. You say “I'm happiest with my old friends who knew me before I became Justice Barrett and I am wistful when we are back in South Bend.” BARRETT: True. O'DONNELL: Do you regret at all joining the Supreme Court? BARRETT: No, I don't regret it. And I think it's really important work and I am proud to serve, and we do have a good life in Washington and we have friends in Washington. But there is something nice about our old life. O'DONNELL: Her new life is centered here at the Supreme Court, where observers describe the 53-year-old mother of seven as the most influential justice on the Court today. REPORTER: Demonstrators against abortion rights erupted in cheers over the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. O'DONNELL: Now, in her first television interview, Justice Barrett is talking publicly about her vote to overturn Roe v. Wade in the 2022 Dobbs decision. I want to read something just from the minority dissent on the Court. BARRETT: Sure. O'DONNELL: For Dobbs, about what essentially the effect of overturning Roe v. Wade would be. And that dissent was signed by Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor. They wrote, “the Court may now face questions about the application of abortion regulations to medical care most people view as quite different from abortion. What about the morning-after pill? IUDs? In vitro fertilization? And how about the use of dilation and evacuation of medication for miscarriage management?” Do you see those as issues that are coming about now as a result of Dobbs? BARRETT: Let's see. Those are issues inherent in medical practice and, sure, they surround pregnancy care and the care of women. And those are issues that are left now to the democratic process and the states are working those out. We have not had those cases on our docket. The central message of Dobbs- Dobbs did not render abortion illegal. Dobbs did not say anything about whether abortion is immoral. Dobbs said that these are questions that are left to the states. All of these kinds of questions, decisions that you mentioned that require medical judgments are not ones that -- that the Constitution commits to the Court to decide how far into pregnancy the right of abortion might extend. The Court was in the business of drawing a lot of those lines before and what Dobbs says is that those calls are properly left to the democratic process, and the states have been working those out. There has been a lot of legislative activity and a lot of state constitutional activity since the decision in Dobbs was rendered. O'DONNELL: For some, the case raised questions about the future of other rights.  And so when Hillary Clinton, for example, says, what's next? She said, “my prediction is the Court will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion.” BARRETT: Well, I think people who criticize the Court who are outside say a lot of different things but, again, the point that I make in the book is that we have to tune those things out. O'DONNELL: But you also say in the book that the rights to marry and engage in sexual intimacy and use birth control and raise children are fundamental. BARRETT: Yes. Again, I’m describing what our doctrine is. And that is what we've said. O'DONNELL: At issue now, cases on the emergency docket challenging Mr. Trump's executive orders. The nation's highest Court has routinely allowed the president's policies, including on immigration and mass layoffs, to temporarily proceed.  And to observers who say that this president is pushing the boundaries of executive power, maybe overreaching, and it’s the Supreme Court is not providing an adequate check on that? BARRETT: The Supreme Court -- you know, and I can speak for myself and the way that I make these decisions, you know, it's not our job to survey and decide whether, you know, the current occupant of an office in this particular moment is, you know, to form a political view. That's the job of journalists. That's the job of other politicians or that's the job of the People. But our job is to decide these legal questions. And so in the cases that we have decided, what I can say and what I try to explain in the book is we are trying to get the law right. TRUMP: Not that I don't have the right to do anything I want to do. I am the president of the United States. If I think our country is in danger, and it is in danger these cities, I can do it. O'DONNELL: Is President Trump right when he says he has unlimited power to deploy the National Guard in any state? BARRETT: So we don't have any cases pending before us that I am aware of. I would not be surprised if there are some cases pending below. And so I can't answer that question. But actually this is a good opportunity for me to say why I can't answer that question, because it's something I cover in the book. Any particular legal issue -- I mean, I might be sitting there with my kids and watching TV and might have an idea about it, but if I am going to decide something as a judge, it really has happen in the context of a particular case because judges have to approach things with an open mind on a specific set of facts. We read briefs. I listen to oral argument. I talk to my law clerks. I write out notes. I look at the cases. I talk to my colleagues. And at any step of that process I might change my mind from my initial reaction. In fact, I often do. And so not only should I not, but I don't think you would want me to be in a position where I shoot from the hip and say, “Oh yeah, I think that's constitutional” or “Oh, no, I think that's not.” That’s really kind of the opposite of the judicial rule. O'DONNELL: But you are a scholar of the Constitution. So I do also want to ask you… (BOTH LAUGH) O’DONNELL: Do you believe that the power to impose tariffs is something the Constitution gives to the president or is that left to Congress? BARRETT: Ugh, and I have to give the same answer again because that one actually will- is pending in the Courts, and we may well, dare I say likely will, see that case. And so the same thing goes. That's the kind of thing, wait and see. I am not trying to hide the ball. I am sure that not only you, but probably others would be interested in, you know what I think about that question. I don't know what I think about that question yet, I can honestly say. You know, stay tuned. If that case comes before us and after I dive in and read all the relevant authorities, then I will draw a conclusion. O'DONNELL: And it's that philosophy that makes Justice Barrett the most closely-watched justice in this upcoming term… BARRETT: I think the Constitution is about promise -- O'DONNELL: And for years to come.  This is a lifetime appointment. BARRETT: This is a lifetime appointment. O'DONNELL: That's a long time that you could be on this Court. BARRETT: Well, while I do feel older by the day, I haven't gotten so old I am actually thinking about retirement just yet.

We Like Her! We REALLY Like Her! Twitchy’s Own ‘Grim Reaper’ Amy Curtis Joining Townhall

Too Little Too Late: X Crushes Leftist Charlotte Mayor For Half-Hearted Response to Brutal Murder

Horrifying. Career Felon Murders Young Woman on Video and Mayor Blames 'Homelessness and Mental Illness'

Overclocking and undervolting are great ways to boost your GPU's performance without spending on an upgrade. Here's the difference between the two.

Overclocking and undervolting are great ways to boost your GPU's performance without spending on an upgrade. Here's the difference between the two.

Explorers have stumbled upon what appears to be a massive stone doorway carved into the remote Dzungarian Alatau mountains of Kazakhstan, igniting widespread speculation about its origins. The mysterious formation, measuring approximately 40 feet tall and equally wide, has captured the imagination of social media users worldwide, with some claiming it as evidence of ancient extraterrestrial visitation. Located at 6,500 feet above sea level near the Chinese border, this enigmatic structure has sparked intense debate about natural geological processes versus human intervention. The discovery was shared through drone footage that shows two explorers dwarfed by the imposing semi-circular formation. According to a Daily Mail report,  Reddit users quickly compared the structure to famous fictional doorways from popular culture, including the entrance to Jabba the Hutt's palace in Star Wars and the Doors of Durin from J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. The footage has gone viral across multiple platforms, with commentators ranging from amateur archaeologists to alien enthusiasts offering their interpretations of this remarkable find. Read moreSection: ArtifactsAncient TechnologyNewsHistory & ArchaeologyAncient PlacesAsiaRead Later 

Homeland ministers from Britain, the United States and the other "Five Eyes" alliance will announce new measures this week to increase border security and target people smugglers, British interior minister Shabana Mahmood said on Sunday.The ministers from the Five Eyes...