January 29, 2025

For being all about free speech, this doesn’t feel constitutional at all. Deporting non-citizens for taking part in pro-Palestinian protests on their college campuses, just because they won’t follow the Israel narrative.

Trump’s words show just how far this goes, "To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you.. I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses.” This is about using power and fear to control the narrative he wants moving forward.

Many of the pro-Palestinian protesters have denied supporting Hamas or engaging in antisemitic actions. They’ve been clear: they’re protesting Israel’s military assault on Gaza, where over 47,000 lives have been lost. But instead of engaging in that nuance, the rhetoric pushes more division.

Having personal beliefs is one thing, but when those beliefs target specific groups and restrict rights, it speaks to a fundamental difference in values.

January 28, 2025

The fact that federal agents showed up at a school to question an 11-year-old over an anti-Trump video is deeply concerning. Chicago Public Schools initially believed they were ICE agents, which makes sense given the heightened fear in immigrant communities, but it turned out to be the Secret Service. Either way, the school handled it—denied them entry, kept students safe, and followed protocol.

But let’s be real—this isn’t about security, it’s about intimidation. A child posted a video criticizing Trump, and they sent federal agents? That sets a dangerous precedent. And with Trump rolling back protections that kept federal agents out of schools, this is only the beginning. The goal is to instill fear and silence dissent, even among kids. That should worry everyone.

January 27, 2025

In light of the recent TikTok ban (and its resurrection), I find myself questioning what "free" speech truly means in America. The ban was disguised as a “national security” concern, yet we’ve seen Meta repeatedly violate user privacy with little consequence.

1. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s $1.4 billion settlement against Meta. 
   The lawsuit accused the company of violating privacy laws by automatically enabling facial recognition on Facebook, scanning and storing users’ biometric data without consent
2. Another lawsuit, filed in California, alleges that Meta collected sensitive health data through its Pixel tracker—found on over 30% of top websites and in major hospital portals—sending private medical information straight to Facebook.

If national security and data privacy were truly the priority, why wasn’t Meta banned? The TikTok ban seems to stem from many things, but none of them are in our best interest.

If history has shown us anything, it’s that they don’t care about you or me—only about what makes them the most money. Once you accept that, you start to see how the world really works.

If you weren’t on TikTok, you might not fully grasp the shift that happened after January 19, 2025. When the app was shut down and then reinstated, something changed. The energy felt off.. The live feature disappeared. And now, with global protests erupting against the far-right, users have to actively seek out coverage—where once it would have flooded our feeds. The bigger picture? The app was infiltrated, reshaped, and returned to us under a new, controlled narrative.

None of this is surprising. Lobbying (there’s that word again) always plays a role. And while this crackdown felt inevitable, the Israel-Palestine conflict seemed to accelerate it. With public support for Israel dwindling as users were exposed to raw, unfiltered coverage through TikTok Live, it became clear just how much power a truly open platform held.

Is it any surprise, then, that Meta spent more on D.C. lobbying in 2024 ($24.4 million) than in any previous year? As Congress debated whether to ban its biggest rival, TikTok, Meta’s lobbying machine went into overdrive. At the same time, they helped block new content moderation laws—ensuring their own platform remained unchecked.

This is more than just losing a platform—it’s a blatant overreach of power fueled by money, stripping away freedom. When corporations and politicians work together to control what we see and where we can exist online, it’s not about safety. It’s about dominance, profit, and keeping the truth from spreading too far.

___________________________________________________________________

COVID-19

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that people suing the Biden administration over social media censorship didn’t have the right to sue. This decision lets government agencies like the FBI keep flagging posts they think are dangerous.

The Biden administration said it was just asking platforms to take down harmful misinformation, but critics argue this was actually the government strong-arming companies to silence speech they didn’t like. Lower courts had ruled that the government did violate free speech, but the Supreme Court tossed the case on a technicality. This ruling basically says that if the government is sneaky enough about pressuring social media, they can get away with it.

By dismissing the case on a technicality rather than its core issue, the Court set a troubling precedent: as long as the government’s pressure is “sophisticated” enough, it may escape judicial scrutiny.