I walked into that house meeting with a knot of anxiety, a strange sense of paranoia. An hour later, I was running into the freezing Ohio night, barefoot and coatless, tears blurring my vision. My paranoia, it turns out, was simply an instinct for survival.  During my last year at Kenyon College, my roommates, all members of Students for Justice in Palestine, called a meeting. There, I sat for an hour, stunned, as they hurled baseless accusations at me.   When I couldn’t stop the tears, I said, “I’m sorry, I have to go now, I’m starting to cry.” No apologies came. Only cold stares from my housemates, one even smiling as I desperately blinked back tears.  I rushed out, too ashamed and afraid to grab a coat or shoes, preferring the biting winter air to another minute inside. I stayed out for hours, then moved into emergency housing two days later. My roommates never apologized or contacted me.  Though my name is Yael and I wear a small Star of David necklace, I never mentioned my beliefs to them. Yet simply existing in their orbit seemed enough to ignite their ire. While I can’t definitively say they attacked me because of antisemitism, their SJP membership—a group notorious for its antisemitic and anti-Zionist views—and one girl’s disturbing Instagram “reflections” suggest otherwise.   Her posts openly declared sentiments like, “If the West wants an Israel so bad, split Germany in half,” and, ominously, “If you think this is justified, live every day knowing your spirit is sick.”  My dorm nightmare mirrored a larger, pervasive campus environment. On campus, Zionist views and basic human decency were suppressed, at least when it came to Israel. Last year, I plastered hostage posters around campus daily. They were torn down almost immediately.  But apparently calling for the release of babies stolen from their beds or those kidnapped while dancing at a music festival on Simchat Torah—the happiest day in the Jewish year—was controversial. So controversial, in fact, that I once saw a professor ripping down a poster of four-year-old Ariel Bibas. But that wasn’t enough for him. He literally scrubbed the wall afterward, ensuring no trace of Ariel remained at Kenyon.  SJP hosted many outspokenly antisemitic speakers, especially after Oct. 7. Among them: Miko Peled, notorious for his refusal to condemn the Hamas terror massacre on James Whale Unleashed. There, Whale directly confronted him: “They’re terrorists. They went into a town and they massacred every man, woman, and child. Are you saying that was false?” Peled was unable to answer.   Despite Peled’s shameful behavior, the college’s Asian and Middle East Studies and English departments directly sponsored his event. SJP may have orchestrated it, but Kenyon was more than willing to fund the antisemite.  SJP, however, didn’t just amplify the voices of antisemitic adults. They also featured Kenyon students, notably during their “Vigil for Palestine” on the one-year anniversary of October 7th. This vigil was described as a “vigil to honor the tens of thousands killed before, on, and after Oct. 7, 2023, and the countless Palestinians who have been displaced and dispossessed since 1948.”   But what about the hostages taken on Oct. 7? As one student speaker eloquently put it, “Who is applying pressure to Israel to release their hostages too?” A disturbing moral equivalency.  And where was the Kenyon Hillel, the only designated Jewish space on campus, during all of this? It failed to live up to the promise of Hillel International: to “always be a safe space for all kinds of Jewish students—a place where they feel welcomed and included.” I certainly didn’t feel that way. Attempting to “be open to everyone,” it refused to associate itself with Israel, which felt like a rejection of a core part of my identity.   While that was difficult, it paled in comparison to the Hillel’s reaction, or lack thereof, to the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust. The Hillel failed to condemn, or even acknowledge the massacre, at least online, until one year after the tragedy. Then, it hosted a poetry reading “to commemorate the anniversary of the hostages being taken and the current conflict that is taking place between Israel and Gaza.” This was hardly the condemnation of Hamas’ pogrom I had hoped for. Sadly, my experience at Kenyon College isn’t unique. In fact, it pales in comparison to what many students across the country have endured since Oct. 7. No one screamed “Death to Israel!” in my dorm, nor did a rock shatter my window and strike my head on Holocaust Remembrance Day.   I consider myself lucky—but what a tragic measure of luck for a Jewish college student. To emerge relatively unscathed after Oct. 7 is a relief that itself underscores a profound campus crisis. According to a February poll by the Anti-Defamation League and Hillel International, an alarming 83 percent of Jewish college students have experienced or seen antisemitism on their campuses since Oct. 7. How much more must Jewish students endure before enough is enough?  The post 83 Percent of Jewish Students Face Campus Hate—How Much More Will Colleges Allow? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

For years, Meta has claimed that it carefully manages access to its platform’s data to benefit users and developers alike. But internal documents from its Federal Trade Commission trial paint a different picture—one of strategic exclusion and economic sabotage cloaked in user protection. Specifically, documents reveal that Meta has been weaponizing its application programming interface, or API, to crush American competitors while maintaining an open door for foreign hostile nations—a double standard that undermines both U.S. innovation and national security. An API is like a digital bridge that allows different software systems to communicate with each other and enables apps and services to share data easily with one another. For tech startups and businesses, API access to major platforms like Facebook is often essential for survival, as it connects them to wider markets. But the lack of that API access can prove deadly. In 2013, Circle, a promising social networking startup, was gaining traction—that is, until Facebook terminated Circle’s API access, saying that Circle was spamming users. Yet internal emails show a different motivation: an attempt to keep Circle from competing with Facebook. Path, another social networking competitor, met a similar fate in April 2013, when Facebook abruptly cut off its API access. According to court documents, Path’s growth “slowed significantly” afterward. Similarly, Vine, Twitter’s short-form video service, was denied API access after a couple of days which could have accelerated its growth. The pattern holds firm. Throughout 2013, Facebook systematically blocked API access to multiple mobile messaging apps, with internal communications stating they would not communicate with developers “in any way about these restrictions.” Facebook acknowledges the detrimental effect that restricting API access has. An internal slide deck in early 2014 states that changing API access would be “killing prospects of many startups.” The message was clear: If you threaten Meta’s dominance, you’ll be digitally excommunicated and your business will die. Yet while American innovators were being systematically cut off, Meta maintained an open and permissive approach to developers from hostile foreign nations. Before the 2014 API change, over 240,000 software developers in hostile countries could access Facebook users’ data. That included nearly 90,000 developers in China, over 42,000 in Russia, 76,000 in Vietnam, and thousands in Iran, Cuba, and North Korea. More specifically, Chinese developers—including those from Huawei—could access users’ profile data, photos, and even private messages. Facebook’s API structure was so permissive that developers only needed consent from one user to access that person’s entire network of friends’ data. A single compromised account could expose hundreds of connections. And Meta knew about these risks. Internal documents show the company was aware that foreign developers could exploit this access for intelligence gathering and espionage. Yet the company continued providing broad access to actors from adversarial nations while simultaneously choking off American competitors under the banner of user protection. Although a court opinion has stated that Meta restricting API access from competitors doesn’t constitute an illegal “refusal to deal” under antitrust law, legal permissibility doesn’t equal ethical behavior. Meta’s selective enforcement puts foreign countries first and America second. The broader implications extend beyond individual company grievances. APIs enable interoperability, increase efficiency, and foster innovation by allowing new services to build upon existing platforms. But when dominant companies like Meta use API access as a competitive moat rather than a bridge to innovation, they effectively tax the entire U.S. ecosystem’s growth potential. Even worse, Meta’s actions aid U.S. enemies. If protecting users were truly the priority, the company would have implemented consistent standards choking off security threats alongside competitive threats. Instead, Meta created a system that protected its market position while leaving users genuinely vulnerable to foreign manipulation and data harvesting. The solution isn’t complex regulation of every API decision, but rather consistency and transparency in how these powerful gatekeepers operate. When platforms achieve the scale and influence of Meta’s ecosystem, their infrastructure decisions effectively become public infrastructure decisions, affecting innovation, competition, and security across entire industries. Congress and federal enforcement agencies should hold these companies with monopolistic reach accountable to their own standards. Meta’s API practices reveal a company that views user and developer protection as a convenient excuse rather than a genuine commitment. Until that changes, we should view Meta’s claims with the skepticism they deserve. After all, a company that protected Chinese developers’ access while blocking American innovators has already shown us where its true loyalties lie. The post FTC Trial Reveals Meta Disregard for National Security, Innovation appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Since the start of 2024, the Metropolitan Police has been quietly transforming London into a testing ground for live facial recognition (LFR). Depending on who you ask, this is either a technological triumph that’s making the capital safer or a mass surveillance experiment that would make any privacy advocate wince. The numbers are eye-watering: in just over 18 months, the Met has scanned the faces of around 2.4 million people. And from that sea of biometric data, they’ve made 1,035 arrests. That’s a hit rate of 0.04%. Or, to put it plainly, more than 99.9% of those scanned had done absolutely nothing wrong. The police, of course, are eager to present this as a success story. Lindsey Chiswick, who oversees the Met’s facial recognition program, calls it a game-changer. “This milestone of 1,000 arrests is a demonstration of how cutting-edge technology can make London safer by removing dangerous offenders from our streets,” she said. Of those arrested, 773 were charged or cautioned. Some were suspects in serious cases, including violent crimes against women and girls. But here’s where things get complicated. To secure those 1,000 arrests, millions of innocent people have had their faces scanned and processed. What’s being billed as precision policing can start to look more like casting an enormous net and hoping you catch something worthwhile. If the figures seem large now, just look at the trend. Back in January 2024, the Met’s cameras scanned 36,000 faces. By November, that number was nearing 190,000 a month. In 2025, they’ve regularly topped 200,000, with February pushing past 300,000 scans. And the Met isn’t alone. The police insist the technology is targeted. The scale of scanning raises uncomfortable questions about where the line is drawn and the implications of the future use of this technology. Supporters argue that LFR saves time, helps track down suspects, and modernizes policing in a way that matches the scale of modern crime. At what point does surveillance stop being smart policing and start becoming a permanent fixture of public life? And once that infrastructure is in place, how easy would it be to dial it back? If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post London is the Testing Lab for Big Brother Mass Facial Scanning Tech appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Afghanistan’s media landscape has come under even tighter control as the Taliban moves to outlaw political debate across all platforms, cementing its campaign to quash free expression. The latest decree compels newspapers, broadcasters, online outlets, and social media channels to gain advance permission from the newly formed Political Program Oversight Committee before disseminating any political material. The sweeping order, issued under the banner Management of Political Programs in Afghanistan, places virtually all political speech under the Taliban’s direct supervision. The committee is tasked with vetting content, preparing legal reviews, monitoring compliance, and handing down penalties to outlets that fail to meet its strict requirements. The rules stipulate that “analysis must be approved by the official oversight committee before airing or publication,” turning any independent scrutiny of politics into a high-risk undertaking. These restrictions dictate that anyone offering commentary on government figures must do so “respectfully, within legal frameworks, and free from defamation or distortion,” while relying solely on evidence from official sources. Analysts are forbidden from contradicting Taliban policy and must carry ID cards issued by the regime’s Directorate of Broadcast Affairs. Even those already cleared to speak must seek fresh approval before appearing on any program. The Taliban has warned that programming must conform to Sharia law, uphold the principles of the Islamic Emirate, and comply with national law. It made its position clear: “No content should be anti-Islamic Emirate.” The threat of revoking media licenses looms over any outlet that dares to defy these new dictates. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Taliban Bans Political Debate, Tightens Grip on Media appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A coalition of independent publishers has filed an antitrust complaint against Google with the European Commission, accusing the tech giant of favoring its AI-generated summaries in search results and harming the visibility of original journalism. The Independent Publishers Alliance submitted the complaint on June 30 and is calling for urgent regulatory action to prevent what it describes as lasting damage to publishers. The group claims that Google’s AI Overviews, which appear at the top of search pages, have significantly reduced web traffic, audience reach, and ad revenue for publishers. By offering instant summaries, the feature discourages users from clicking through to original content and it was the content of publishers that Big Tech companies like Google used to train its AI models on in the first place. The share of news-related searches ending without a single click rose to 69 percent in May 2025, compared with 56 percent a year earlier; according to SimilarWeb. The EU’s Competition and Markets Authority acknowledged receiving the complaint. A spokesperson said that the EU is already working to address Google’s dominance in search and advertising. “Last week, we proposed to designate Google with strategic market status in search and search advertising. If designated, this would allow us to introduce targeted measures to address specific aspects of how Google operates search services in the UK,” the official said to Reuters. Google’s AI Overviews are active in more than 100 countries, and as of May 2025, ads are now included in these summaries. The complaint is supported by the Movement for an Open Web and Foxglove Legal, a UK nonprofit. Google rejected the claims and defended its AI-powered search features. A spokesperson said the new tools help users discover more content. “New AI experiences in Search enable people to ask even more questions, which creates new opportunities for content and businesses to be discovered,” the spokesperson said. The company pointed out that it delivers billions of clicks to websites daily and that shifts in traffic can result from factors like user interest, seasonal trends, and changes to search algorithms. The European complaint reflects similar concerns raised in a US lawsuit by an educational technology firm, which alleges that AI Overviews have reduced demand for original content and hurt publishers’ competitiveness. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Google Faces EU Antitrust Complaint Over AI Search Summaries appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Active Shooter Killed Outside McAllen, Texas Border Patrol Annex

On July 5, between 9:00 and 9:15 UTC, something appears to have hit Saturn. If verified, it will be the first ever to be caught on camera.

"If this woman looked at someone's face for long enough, she would see that face morph into the face of a dragon."

This is the second time the volcano has erupted in less than a month.

Throughout Saturday, CNN senior White House reporter Betsy Klein couldn’t help but work into her live shots blatant speculation about whether cuts to the National Weather Service by President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) played a role in the deaths of what was then 50 known dead in catastrophic flooding that struck Texas’s Hill Country. Klein’s hijinks started in the 1:00 p.m. Eastern hour with an allusion to President Trump’s desire to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as a way to wonder if there would be a “full extent of this federal response” and “if there will be a request for additional aid from Congress.” She upped the ante two hours later, adding for the doom and gloom effect that “the so-called Big Beautiful Bill that the President signed into law just yesterday does make cuts or even closes some weather research laboratories that are vital to forecasting and improving forecasts:     By the 5:00 p.m. Eastern hour, she added DOGE to the equation, alluding to the “cuts for hundreds of employees at NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, as well as the National Weather Service” while also trying to claim “[i]t’s really too soon to say whether those cuts contributed to any of the lack of alerts here.” For anyone who recognizes the game the liberal media play, merely introducing a possible narrative is as good as gold and more than enough to create doubt and sow division. She doubled down an hour later, cloaking the DOGE mention in merely “people asking questions in the immediate aftermath of how something like this could happen”: By the 7:00 p.m. Eastern hour, Klein had settled on a narrative (click “expand”): KLEIN [at 7:36 p.m. Eastern]: Two other points I want to note. Number one, the President has been deeply critical of FEMA. He says he plans to phase out that agency at the end of this hurricane season. And second, going forward, the President’s budget for fiscal year 2026, which they are already starting to implement, does make cuts and even closes. Some of these weather research labs that are so critical for forecasting. They really give that data that we need for better forecasts. The tools that they use to collect that data are now experiencing cuts. DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency also cut hundreds of employees at NOAA, which is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the National Weather Service. It’s really too soon to know at this stage whether this had any sort of impact on this notification effort. But Secretary Noem was pressed on the alerts from the National Weather Center. Here’s how she defended the administration. NOEM: That is something and one of the reasons that when President Trump took office that he said he wanted to fix and his currently upgrading the technology and the National Weather Service has indicated that with that and NOAA, that we needed to renew this ancient system that has been left in place with the federal government for many, many years. But I do carry your concerns back to the federal government, to President Trump and we will do all we can to fix those kinds of things that that may have felt like a failure to you. KLEIN: Now, the storm that created the conditions for this flash flooding was completely unpredictable, truly unprecedented. (....) KLEIN [at 8:38 p.m. Eastern]: But I want to point out two additional things as we continue to track this federal response. Number one is that the President has been deeply critical of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He says that he plans to phase it out at the conclusion of this year’s hurricane season. Separately, the Trump administration’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget is which it’s already abiding by, offers massive cuts to some weather research labs that are vital to forecast extreme weather events like this. They collect better data for better forecasts and the tools that they are using here are experiencing cut right now. Now, DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency has also cut staffers at NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the National Weather Service. But Secretary Noem was really pressed on the National Weather Service’s alerts leading up to this. Here’s what she said as she defended the administration. NOEM: That is something and one of the reasons that when President Trump took office that he said he wanted to fix and is currently upgrading the technology. And the National Weather Service has indicated that with that and NOAA that we needed to renew this ancient system that has been left in place with the federal government for many, many years. But I do carry your concerns back to the federal government and to President Trump and we will do all we can to fix those kinds of things that may have felt like a failure to you. KLEIN: Of course, this storm was extremely unpredictable. The water rising so quickly, so unprecedented. In her final live shot of the night, she showed her mind wasn’t changing about speculating: Before the first of two taped live shots for the 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. Eastern hours, Situation Room co-host Wolf Blitzer gave her a just-asking-questions strategy a boost: Meanwhile, the U.S. Homeland Security Secretary is strongly defending the federal government’s response to the disaster in Texas. Secretary Kristi Noem says President Trump is “currently upgrading technology at the National Weather Service.” However, the President’s mega bill, which he just signed into law, makes cuts and even closes some weather research labs that help make forecast improvements. And his DOGE team, as it’s called, fired hundreds of employees at the National Weather Service and at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. To see the relevant CNN transcript from July 5, click here.