Poland is doing just fine. Some of the Far Northern European nations seem to be waking up. I still believe England can be saved - they've been conquered before. Do not underestimate the resolve of my people. It just takes a seed of hope. 

That is racist, now, displaying the St. George Cross. Did you know? As offensive as a Swastika, so I am told. It is the new PUNK thing. 

Phase 2 begins. 

"Australia has enacted a world-first ban on social media for users aged under 16, causing millions of children and teenagers to lose access to their accounts.

Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, Kick, Twitch and TikTok are expected to have taken steps from Wednesday to remove accounts held by users under 16 years of age in Australia, and prevent those teens from registering new accounts.

Platforms that do not comply risk fines of up to $49.5m."

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/dec/09/australia-under-16-social-media-ban-begins-apps-listed

So if you carry a burner phone/laptop since you don't want to lose your real one ( which is actually pretty standard when traveling abroad ), and wont give up your last 5 years of history to us ( online personas, addresses, phone numbers, travels, etc ) you don't get to enter the country. Presumed guilt.

When does it start happening locally?  Random stops, "lets see your papers and your phone.  So, we see your phone does not have xyz so it must have been wiped and you must be guilty of something, come with us"

And also right on schedule. Never let a event to waste and always use it to increase control over the serfs.

"Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says his government will crack down on hate speech following Sunday's deadly shooting at Bondi Beach that targeted a Jewish festival.

New laws will target "those who spread hate, division and radicalisation", Albanese told reporters in Canberra." 

So Tiktok to be sold to Ellison, its official now.

At this point doesn't he own most 'media' in this country now? Where the hell is the FTC?

Ok, not *all*  of it, just the US market.

But the statement still holds.

Fri Dec 19 2025 00:40:57 UTC from Nurb432

So Tiktok to be sold to Ellison, its official now.

At this point doesn't he own most 'media' in this country now? Where the hell is the FTC?

I kind of agree with Nurb on this. I remember when the FTC and other 3 letter acronyms fought excessive consolidation in capitalist economies - because is is bad. 

I remember when you couldn't buy electronics that weren't UL listed. Now Amazon will sell you cheap Chinese PSUs that have no UL listing - all you have to do is order them on Amazon. 


We threw ALL regulation out the door. If we're going to do that, why not throw out child labor laws, prostitution laws, drug laws, building codes? Why not have a completely unregulated open market and let smart and dumb consumers sort it out? 

As a conservative straight white male Republican - I fell like this is a fair question. 

Yes its is sort of ironic for me to be calling for federal intervention, but there are a few, very few, things the feds should be involved in, and i do think that is one.  Not for them to play favorites, or go overboard on restrictions, but work towards keeping it a level playing field.

Since people cant behave themselves as a society, **limited** oversight is needed. I think my feelings would align pretty well with Thomas Jefferson's in this aspect.

Oh wait! I said, "Less Government," and you almost instantly responded, "Not THAT much LESS government?" 

See. I may be more libertarian than you. I'd like other people NOT fucking around with my decisions, regardless of if that is daytime speed limit on i-10 or if I can buy weed on the next corner OR... shit.. age of consent for marriage. 

It isn't MY problem, until I *make* it my problem. 

I don't live in Utah, so I don't GAF what Utah decides is "right" in Utah. 

Maybe I am wrong. 

Tue Dec 23 2025 14:54:34 UTC from Nurb432

Yes its is sort of ironic for me to be calling for federal intervention, but there are a few, very few, things the feds should be involved in, and i do think that is one.  Not for them to play favorites, or go overboard on restrictions, but work towards keeping it a level playing field.

 

Since people cant behave themselves as a society, **limited** oversight is needed. I think my feelings would align pretty well with Thomas Jefferson's in this aspect.

I think we both agree on the principle of minimal. 

But i do think that due to people being jerks/etc there has to be a little, not zero. History has shown people cant control themselves. Human nature.

Fri Dec 26 2025 06:56:44 UTC from ParanoidDelusions

Oh wait! I said, "Less Government," and you almost instantly responded, "Not THAT much LESS government?" 

I'm so big on small government - that I think California and Arizona shouldn't be telling Utah how many wives they can have, if Utah mostly agrees. I don't think that DC should be telling Washington and Oregon what drugs should or shouldn't be legal. If they want no recourse against heroin addicts, let them try that exercise. 

I think that it is OK for the Federal government to go, "We do not believe 12 year old girls can consent to be 3rd wives. If Utah thinks that, we'll not federally fund them on OTHER programs, like their highways. If they want to marry 12 year old girls to 70 year old men, let them figure out their OWN highway system." 

And then if trucking companies go, "Utah's highways are substandard - we won't deliver to them or drive through them, to get from Wyoming to Nevada and California - we'll go around..." 

We should deal with that, too. And the costs. 

Same for drugs in Oregon and Washington. "If you don't recognize our laws and penalties for heroin, we'll suspend federal funding in your state, and you have to suffer the economic consequences of being unaligned with Federal Laws." 

It certainly complicates things - but it also respects libertarian principles. There CAN be ZERO... but choosing zero doesn't come without *consequences*. 

Then you decide what is more important in your State - the freedom - or the economic benefits of choosing less than zero. 

Fri Dec 26 2025 12:02:23 UTC from Nurb432

I think we both agree on the principle of minimal. 

But i do think that due to people being jerks/etc there has to be a little, not zero. History has shown people cant control themselves. Human nature.

Fri Dec 26 2025 06:56:44 UTC from ParanoidDelusions

Oh wait! I said, "Less Government," and you almost instantly responded, "Not THAT much LESS government?" 

 

I'll take it a step further than that: the federal government shouldn't be giving grants to any state for any reason.  100% of those funds go towards fraud.

That they have the money to give grants, is a fraud in itself. They take too much of our money.   Should be limited government and just enough to keep the lights on.  

Mon Dec 29 2025 18:23:04 UTC from IGnatius T Foobar

I'll take it a step further than that: the federal government shouldn't be giving grants to any state for any reason.  100% of those funds go towards fraud.

oh, wow, you're a MegaCapitalist.  

Didn't peg that to begin with.

Capitalism will never solve problems, unless the problem is "what can I do to make more money".

It may start with solving a problem, and then it will turn to enshittification.

I'm pretty sure you understand enshittification.

Now apply enshittification to *EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS*, and you have the consequences of your post.

Sun Dec 28 2025 06:56:17 UTC from ParanoidDelusions

I'm so big on small government - that I think California and Arizona shouldn't be telling Utah how many wives they can have, if Utah mostly agrees. I don't think that DC should be telling Washington and Oregon what drugs should or shouldn't be legal. If they want no recourse against heroin addicts, let them try that exercise. 

I think that it is OK for the Federal government to go, "We do not believe 12 year old girls can consent to be 3rd wives. If Utah thinks that, we'll not federally fund them on OTHER programs, like their highways. If they want to marry 12 year old girls to 70 year old men, let them figure out their OWN highway system." 

And then if trucking companies go, "Utah's highways are substandard - we won't deliver to them or drive through them, to get from Wyoming to Nevada and California - we'll go around..." 

We should deal with that, too. And the costs. 

Same for drugs in Oregon and Washington. "If you don't recognize our laws and penalties for heroin, we'll suspend federal funding in your state, and you have to suffer the economic consequences of being unaligned with Federal Laws." 

It certainly complicates things - but it also respects libertarian principles. There CAN be ZERO... but choosing zero doesn't come without *consequences*. 

Then you decide what is more important in your State - the freedom - or the economic benefits of choosing less than zero. 

 

Fri Dec 26 2025 12:02:23 UTC from Nurb432

I think we both agree on the principle of minimal. 

But i do think that due to people being jerks/etc there has to be a little, not zero. History has shown people cant control themselves. Human nature.

Fri Dec 26 2025 06:56:44 UTC from ParanoidDelusions

Oh wait! I said, "Less Government," and you almost instantly responded, "Not THAT much LESS government?"