RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.afterbabel.com/p/how-apple-google-and-microsoft-can

The current system for protecting children online does not work. It relies on parents understanding and managing their children’s online experience across a wide variety of applications. I live in the Bay Area and have many friends who work at large technology companies. I don’t know a single parent among them who feels completely comfortable with the options that currently exist. If the people who build technology products do not know how to protect their kids, we clearly need a better solution.

Parents are left on their own to figure out how to stop strangers from contacting their children and how to prevent anonymous cyberbullying. They need to figure out how to prevent their kids from seeing something they are not ready for in a world where 58% of teens report seeing sexually explicit content by accident and 19% of Instagram teens report seeing unwanted sexually explicit content every 7 days. And then there’s sleep: How do they ensure they don’t receive notifications at 1 am on a school night? Few parents feel confident in addressing these real and important concerns. 

The providers of operating systems, which is a market that Apple, Google, and Microsoft dominate, could help. It would not only be the right thing to do, but it would also be a huge relief to the many parents who want their children to have rich social lives that require the ability to interact with their friends (who are online) — but do not have the time and energy to manage the myriad settings that exist across services. Parents need a simple way to protect their children online that doesn’t require them to know the difference between Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube settings and how to manage each of them separately. There is even a business incentive here: Many parents might be *more* willing to buy a device that promises a simple solution.

Of course, the best solution might be for children to stop using these products altogether. The four norms suggested in The Anxious Generation—which include delaying entry into social media until age 16—would do a lot of good, but there will still be youth who need protection from technology-enabled harms, even if such usage is drastically reduced. Children mature continuously and at very different rates, and so a child is not necessarily more able to handle a smartphone when they start high school or able to interact productively on social media on their 16th birthday, as compared to the day before. Even if legislative changes occur such that children cannot sign up for social media accounts without their parent’s permission until their 16th birthday, most families will still want an option that reduces the risk of their newly eligible sixteen-year-old receiving unwanted advances from others, should they choose to use social media at that time.

Some children may develop slower and may need more time before fully engaging with these technologies. On the other hand, some children may benefit from access to technology sooner. Many researchers have pointed out the benefits of social media for kids who have specific support needs, such as some LGBT children—and parents of those children—may want to provide earlier access. Even as many may disagree with their decision, some parents may still want their children to have a smartphone in order to be able to access YouTube, which has a wealth of educational content, or to be able to FaceTime their grandparents – even at earlier ages. Those parents may want solutions that enable their children to use these devices more safely.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/boycott-divest-and-sanction-columbia

The images of the recent protests at Columbia University have grabbed the attention of the American public: students chanting for a Palestinian state, “from the river to the sea”; activists setting up a mass tent encampment on the campus lawn; masked occupiers seizing control of Hamilton Hall. For some, it was a sign that ancient anti-Semitism had established itself in the heart of the Ivy League. For others, it was déjà vu of 1968, when mass demonstrations last roiled campus.

After weeks of rising tensions, Columbia president Minouche Shafik resolved the immediate conflict by summoning the New York City Police Department, which swiftly disbanded anti-Israel student encampments, removed the occupiers of Hamilton Hall, and arrested more than 100 students, who were subsequently suspended.

President Shafik feigned surprise. In a statement to students, she expressed “deep sadness” about the campus chaos. But to anyone who has observed Columbia in recent decades, the upheaval should not come as a surprise. Behind the images of campus protests lies a deeper, more troubling story: the ideological capture of the university, which inexorably drove Columbia toward this moment. Columbia for decades has cultivated the precise conditions that allowed the pro-Hamas protests to flourish. The university built massive departments to advance “postcolonialism,” spent hundreds of millions of dollars on “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” and glorified New Left–style student activism as the telos of university life.

Terms like these might sound benign as euphemisms, but the reality is sinister. As the protests revealed, postcolonial theory is often an academic cover for anti-Semitism, DEI is frequently a method for enflaming racial grievances, and student activism can become a rationalization for violence and destruction.

The university, founded by royal charter in 1754 and a great American institution for more than two centuries, has lost its way. There will need to be a reckoning before it can return to its former glory.

The first part of that process is understanding what went wrong. To do so, we will attempt to uncover the roots of Columbia’s Intifada.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/deception-and-misinformation/

It is becoming more and more challenging to get advanced academic education without being exposed to malicious educators and others, who are willing to advance their own agenda, and ignore the interest of their students.

The recent turmoil in multiple universities in the USA and elsewhere, is only a symptom of many years of on-going indoctrination which is being ignored, due to various excuses.

Recently, there were again, alarms from the PJTN organization and from others, about the indoctrination of the young students in the K-12 classrooms, in multiple states.

I am glad that we have many organizations who would like to do better than the others, in exposing and marginalizing the bad operatives.

We need all of them, as there may be some that will reach groups of people, that others would not be able to do.

Some of the problems of having that many organizations are related to the fact that unfortunately, many times, they are not delivering the same messages, nor addressing the same problems, in systematically and repetitiously effective ways. We know from the science of commercial marketing, that if we want people to remember, identify, and ultimately, buy a product, they will have to hear the messages multiple times, and in different ways. Therefore, sharing well documented, similar, valuable, basic, and relevant information, by different sources, will significantly amplify the distribution of the messages, and will hopefully result in reaching and convincing more people, to act in their own interest, to expose and marginalize evil.

One of the hot topics of today is related to the insidious infiltration of radical groups into our educational system, with serious effects on the society at large. This phenomenon is not new. It happened already in the past, but recently it has gained momentum, which is affecting not only the students, but also educators and political decision makers. Consequently, it negatively affects the population at large.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/05/21/revisiting-reagans-commencement-address-at-notre-dame/

On Sunday, Joe Biden gave the commencement speech at Morehouse College, a historically black male college in Atlanta. Rather than use the moment to inspire the graduating class and provide them with life advice or any sort of wisdom, Biden instead chose to turn it into a highly divisive, racially inflammatory, and anti-American campaign speech—in a pathetic attempt to regain his rapidly diminishing support within the black community.

He called for “an immediate ceasefire” in Gaza, undermining Israel’s ability to defeat that savage terrorist group yet again. He slammed America as “systemically racist.” He warned the audience about the supposed threat of “white supremacy.” He insinuated that black men are randomly “being killed” by cops in the streets—a specious charge not backed by any data—and he uttered this rather remarkable line to the graduating class: “what does it mean, as we’ve heard before, to be a black man who loves his country even if it doesn’t love him back in equal measure?”

Yes, the president of the United States told a group of young black male graduates that the country they live in—and the one he is supposedly in charge of—does not love them. How inspiring.

But rather than spend anymore ink dissecting what was truly a despicable and grotesque speech by a reprehensible man, it is important to remember what a real commencement address delivered by a real president, who isn’t trying to score cheap political points, should look and sound like.

Almost 43 years to the day before Biden’s shameful remarks at Morehouse College, President Ronald Reagan delivered the commencement address at Notre Dame University on May 17, 1981.

The contrast between the two speeches could not have been more stark. Reagan spoke excitedly of a country that he was proud to be a citizen and leader of.

As was typical of Reagan, it was full of humor and self-depreciation.

This spring, students on dozens of college campuses have built encampments and occupied buildings in anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and pro-terrorist demonstrations.

Not surprisingly, some have turned violent.

In general, universities that cracked down on disruptive demonstrations and disciplined the students involved, limited damage both to their buildings and reputations. But other colleges did the opposite and “negotiated” themselves into shocking concessions.

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

Northwestern University is an elite college and admits just seven percent of applicants. It has top faculties in medicine, law, engineering, business, the arts and sciences, journalism, and even theatre. Students come from around the world and from all 50 states. Long called a “near-Ivy,” its place among the best U.S. universities is unquestioned. 

And yet, as happened at so many distinguished schools, this spring, Northwestern students set up an anti-Israel encampment.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/campus-pro-hamas-encampments-an-omen-of-western-societal-demise/

Since the October 7 Hamas massacre, rape and kidnapping of nearly 2,000 Israelis, Western democracies have been engulfed in what are commonly called “pro-Palestinian protests.” Aided and abetted by a leftist legacy media, naïve and ignorant university students, and spineless politicians at all levels, our city streets and university campuses have become battlegrounds. But battlegrounds for what? Is this really about Israel and Gaza, or is something more insidious going on?

An answer to this question lies in events that took place in Hamburg, Germany at the end of April, where more than 1,000 Muslims marched through the streets demanding that the country transform itself into an Islamic caliphate.

In recent weeks, the focus has been on encampments which have sprouted like toadstools on university campuses. An examination of what goes on in these tent cities might provide us with a glimpse of what the future could hold.

These insurrections are not about Israel, or Palestine, or even Gaza. The end game is anarchy, chaos, and finally a nation defined by Sharia. The methodology is simple – intimidation. We see it weekly in the marches that shut down our streets, take over the public spaces, and overrun our universities.

Therefore, it is not surprising that any attempt to counter the hateful propaganda embedded in infantile slogans, with facts, is met with howls that the “freedom of speech” is under threat. Yet, how much “freedom of speech” really exists in the encampments? Videos taken by visiting journalists are revealing. Media tents have been erected by entrances. Only “approved” journalists may enter or ask questions, and only designated activists may answer. Attempts to speak to the students directly are met with responses that they are not “trained” to speak to the media; then these students direct the questioner to the “media tent.” In cases where unapproved journalists did manage to enter the encampments, they were soon met by an organizer who inserted himself between the journalist and the student to prevent any dialogue from taking place. Tight control over what is said and by whom is the order of the day. Freedom of speech for some, but not for others.