As Americans, we like to think our boys are tough and resilient. But online, they’re the most vulnerable — and the most overlooked.
The internet has become a digital trap for millions of young men and boys. The addictive features programmed into smartphones, social media, video games, and online pornography are intentionally designed to hook kids at an early age. 

Boys are now spending significant amounts of time gaming, scrolling, and chatting on platforms that were never built for their safety.
In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination by suspected shooter Tyler Robinson, a Wall Street Journal columnist astutely <a href="https://www.wsj.com/opinion/tyler-robinson-and-americas-lost-boys-16e1a64f?gaa_at=eafs&amp;gaa_n=ASWzDAiDLHQk7XYUWCYadmUhnBP8_i51LLKSxIVs9t7s6dHSxgWLkTp53M4RQeaPdnc%3D&amp;gaa_ts=68c85e0f&amp;gaa_sig=FtIvSFrAOw7LAbNtikhsW7FZPGTE7FTBmqlB_6pOrJLWP67qk-WkTCu_mrS6z0uIn-HnujYpWDNNwlbyqQyFMw%3D%3D">noted</a>, “Political violence is a problem. But so is the atomized culture in which young men retreat into confused inner worlds and virtual realities, which can be as addictive and destructive as any drug.” 
 
Across America, young men are drifting into digital isolation — where algorithms, pornographers, sexual predators, and toxic role models, not parents or mentors, manipulate their mindsets and attitudes and ultimately shape who they become. 
 
Those algorithms are now even more powerful. A Common Sense Media <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/press-releases/new-report-reveals-how-online-experiences-inform-adolescent-boys-development">survey</a> revealed that “algorithms, not user intent, are the primary driver of boys&#8217; exposure to posts about masculinity; 68 percent of boys who see such material online say it started showing up in their feed without them searching for it.” 
 
Toxic influencers online exploit boys searching for identity, feeding them anger, distorted ideas about women, and extreme behaviors amplified by social media algorithms. 
 
Social media, video games, and online pornography are engineered for compulsion, addiction, and control. They hijack attention and reward obsession — and boys are the biggest consumers. 
 
Violent video games can be especially problematic for boys, since they use the same first-person shooter technology used to train military and law enforcement to kill. 
 
“Modern military and law enforcement training to adults with discipline makes killing a conditioned response. And it works … we know video games can do the same thing to our kids. The term I use is ‘murder simulators.’ The flight simulators teach you to fly — the murder simulators teach you to murder,” Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, one of the world’s foremost experts on human aggression, shared on my <a href="http://youtu.be/vlnarQ9Na5k">podcast</a>. 
 
According to <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/05/09/teens-and-video-games-today/">Pew Research</a>, 85% of U.S. teenagers play video games, with 67% of teen boys (compared to 22% of girls) playing daily. A UK <a href="https://ygam.org/news/teenage-boys-spend-more-hours-gaming-than-in-school/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">report</a> found that teenage boys (ages 15-17) spend almost 34 hours per week playing video games. Pew Research also <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/teens-and-social-media-fact-sheet/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">indicates</a> that 93% of boys ages 13-17, compared to 87% of girls, watch YouTube. 
 
And when it comes to today’s online pornography, which often depicts violence against young women, the numbers are just as alarming. A national <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/press-releases/new-report-reveals-truths-about-how-teens-engage-with-pornography">survey</a> found 73% of teens 13–17 have seen pornography online, and more than half saw it by age 13. Adolescents who view this toxic content are <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9853222/">more likely to engage</a> in risky sexual activities or have anxiety and depression. Boys are far more likely to have sought it out intentionally. 
 
The risks of any child or teen being online are not theoretical. Many parents who have lost children to social media challenges, like the TikTok “blackout challenge,” have said that their children were led into dangerous content by algorithmic design that favors engagement, extremes, and harmful viral trends. 
 
As boys spend time gaming online or scrolling social media feeds alone, they are left wide open to manipulation. 
The FBI has <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sacramento/news/sextortion-a-growing-threat-preying-upon-our-nations-teens">warned</a> that global financial sextortion — predators posing as teen girls to lure boys into sending explicit photos, then blackmailing them — is one of the fastest-growing crimes targeting children, in particular minor-aged boys. 
 
Tragically, dozens of boys have died by suicide after being trapped in these schemes. Gavin Guffey, 17, became <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/29/us/nigerian-extradited-guffey-sextortion-cec">a victim</a> of online sextortion and sadly took his own life. 
 
No parent should ever have to live through that nightmare. 
 
Congress must start holding Big Tech accountable by passing the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1748/text">Kids Online Safety Act</a> and other bipartisan legislation. Big Tech must ensure its products are designed with safety in mind, with default safety settings turned on, not off, and not as an afterthought once childhood innocence has been destroyed. The Department of Justice must start aggressively prosecuting the existing federal obscenity laws according to the 1997 Supreme Court ruling that determined “transmitting obscenity and child pornography, whether via the Internet or other means, is&#8230; illegal under federal law for both adults and juveniles.” 
 
Ensuring our boys and young men are protected from harm must be a shared responsibility in which Congress, Big Tech, communities, and ultimately parents, each do their part. 
 
Boys need fathers and mentors who model authentic masculinity — strength, responsibility, and courage. Positive role models can help them navigate the digital world and grow into men their families and our communities can rely on. 
 
If we lose our boys to screens, to rage, counterfeit sexuality, or despair, we lose the next generation of American men. If we want strong men tomorrow, we must start protecting and guiding our boys today. 

* * *
Donna Rice Hughes, President and CEO of <a href="https://enough.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Enough Is Enough</a>, is an internationally known internet safety expert, author, speaker, media commentator, producer, and host of the Emmy Award-winning PBS Internet Safety series and host of the podcast, “<a href="https://internetsafety101.org/podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Internet Safety, with Donna Rice Hughes</a>”. Under her leadership, EIE created the <a href="https://internetsafety101.org/">Internet Safety 101 Program</a> in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Justice.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Playing Video Games

Boys Are Now Caught Under The Spell Of Predatory Algorithms

algorithm

Big Tech

Boys

Culture

Opinion

Pornography

Social Issues

Social Media

Technology

Video Games

When President Trump took to Truth Social to <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115370746210555899">promote</a> Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s new book, “I Am Giorgia,” many may have viewed it as a natural alliance between two champions of national pride, family values, and strong leadership. Trump praised Meloni as an inspiration, highlighting her dedication to faith, family, and country — qualities he has always deeply valued.
However, the public display of friendship and affection stands in stark contrast to recent moves by the Italian government to harm American businesses. In fact, its recent policy decisions are quietly undermining a vital element of Trump’s economic strategy with Europe — particularly the principle against unfair, targeted fees on America’s innovators in the tech and telecom sectors.
The Italian bureaucracy, through Italy’s telecom authority AGCOM, has recently taken <a href="https://ccianet.org/news/2025/09/italys-move-towards-network-fees-sets-blueprint-for-eu-under-digital-networks-act-study-finds/">steps</a> that classify Content Delivery Networks as part of Italy’s national telecom infrastructure. This may seem like a technical regulatory shift, but it sets a dangerous precedent for forcing U.S.-based streaming giants like Netflix and YouTube to shoulder <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/italys-telecoms-regulator-walks-fine-line-between-meloni-trump-and-brussels-over-network-fees/">new costs</a>.
The idea that such platforms should pay what Europe calls “network fees” was repeatedly rejected by Brussels to avoid sparking a trade war with the United States. Yet Italy’s move appears to be a sneaky attempt to backdoor these fees through regulation rather than overt legislation.
That makes this latest maneuver particularly troubling in light of the U.S.–EU trade deal framework, which explicitly commits Europe to refraining from imposing network fees or equivalent measures that target American digital services. That commitment was celebrated as a breakthrough for fair and open digital trade — and a win for both sides of the Atlantic. Italy’s proposal represents a direct and duplicitous workaround of that agreement and should not be tolerated by either Meloni or President Trump.
The problem runs deeper than just economic policy. President Trump has always insisted that America should be treated fairly and that U.S. companies should not be subjected to unfair financial penalties while European companies enjoy protection. The essence of Trump’s “America First” trade approach is not just about tariffs but standing up to Europe’s habit of disguising predatory actions as “fairness” or “sovereignty.” Time and again, European bureaucrats have tried to charm American leadership with lofty rhetoric while quietly pursuing policies that simultaneously penalize U.S. tech innovators in favor of incumbent European firms and <a href="https://strandconsult.dk/is-there-a-correlation-between-european-nations-level-of-chinese-telecom-equipment-the-consumption-of-russian-energy-and-military-aid-to-ukraine/">hand over</a> their purportedly sacred sovereignty to Chinese companies.
In fact, in Italy’s case, more than a third of its 5G infrastructure is supplied by China. And the country’s largest telecom provider, Telecom Italia (TIM), has <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/pietro-labriola_digitale-innovazione-sostenibilitaeq-activity-7383556923331162112-xRkN/?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAACcXXMBcipZDNsVQ3AlxVNbqOAKXKgu_r0">deep ties</a> with other countries at the center of <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2025/10/13/john-czwartacki-brazil-is-waging-war-on-american-technology-with-chinas-help/">China’s scheme</a> to drive a wedge between the United States and our allies across the Atlantic and in our own backyard. 
The regulatory maneuvers of Meloni’s government are out of step with her public embrace of Trump’s values. She claims to stand for independence and patriotism, yet by empowering AGCOM to impose regulatory costs on American tech, she works within the same globalist, big government EU framework that Trump himself has warned against. This contradiction should raise alarms on both sides of the Atlantic. Supporting a populist vision in politics means little if the policies implemented to bring it to fruition end up stifling competition and reducing consumer welfare.
Italy’s approach to network fees could also spark retaliatory measures that hurt Italian and European interests in the process. Real partnership demands more than symbolic displays of loyalty. It requires shared commitment to open markets, fair competition, and the removal of hidden barriers.
Europe’s temptation to manipulate U.S. leaders through false promises while it advances onerous regulatory measures designed to impose new costs must be understood for what it is. President Trump’s success has come from hard-nosed deals and a refusal to be played. Europeans seem to believe they can deflect this approach by offering words of friendship and then quietly imposing rules that undermine longstanding agreements and harm the U.S. tech sector.
Meloni’s memoir captures the spirit many admire — strong roots, fierce pride, and clear principles — but her government’s recent actions surrounding network fees show that principles alone are not enough. The mutually beneficial alliance Trump seeks with leaders like Meloni must rest on policies that truly defend fairness and reciprocity and reject regulatory overreach that unfairly burdens U.S. businesses.
In the end, Trump recognizes that true partnership is built on shared interests and respect, not on central planning that distorts the market and seeks to extract money under the guise of fairness. Meloni’s Italy may talk the language of sovereignty, but on this issue, it echoes the very European playbook Trump has fought against: using regulation to impose hidden taxes on American innovation.
If President Trump’s affection for Meloni is to be returned in kind, it must coincide with a call for policies aligned with his economic principles. Otherwise, public displays of friendship are mere symbolic gestures that hypocritically mask Europe’s continued attempts to challenge American leadership. Such contradictions weaken transatlantic unity and threaten the very foundation of the deal Trump fought to secure.
* * *
Ashley Baker is Executive Director of The Committee for Justice, a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rule of law and constitutionally limited government.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

President Trump Meets With Visiting Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni At The White House

Trump’s Favorite European Ally Is Quietly Undermining His Trade Agenda

Business

Corporations

Donald Trump

European Union

Foreign Policy

Giorgia Meloni

Italy

Taxes

News on the economy is all over the place, but a solid thread runs through it: many recent American college graduates can’t find jobs. Not only are employers not hiring, they’re laying off left and right. Amazon and United Parcel Service are each cutting more than 14,000 jobs, and the Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs/white-collar-jobs-ai-324b749c?st=BLfhsb&amp;reflink=article_email_share">says</a> tens of thousands of white-collar jobs are being cut at other companies.
Yet at the same time, the U.S. immigration system permits thousands of foreign college graduates to enter the job market in direct competition with Americans. Companies employing them don’t have to pay the same payroll taxes as they do when hiring American citizens and permanent residents. This gives foreign students an unfair advantage over American graduates.
The program allowing foreign graduates to work is called Optional Practical Training (OPT). It was <a href="https://cis.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/miano-OPT.pdf">started</a> decades ago by the administrative state through regulation, without any express congressional authorization. Over time, and through collusion between Washington and large employers, OPT was expanded into a pathway for foreign students who completed their studies to remain working for years, or indefinitely, in the U.S. while seeking permanent residence.
Given the brutal job market, the underlying premise for OPT no longer applies. Why allow masses of temporary foreign students to remain in the U.S. and enter the work force right out of college when your own graduates can’t get jobs? The argument for eliminating this program has never been stronger. As Lora Ries <a href="https://wng.org/roundups/weighing-the-price-of-100-000-worker-visas-1759852411#:~:text=Ries%20from%20the%20Heritage%20Foundation,preferred%20hiring%20for%20American%20workers.">argues</a>, we need to “allow American students and American workers a fair shake at applying for jobs, being interviewed for jobs, being hired for jobs, and being retained at their jobs.”
<a href="https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/aug/recent-college-grads-bear-brunt-labor-market-shifts">Unemployment</a> of college graduates aged 23-27 is a few percentage points higher than the national average of 4%. The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/15/business/long-term-unemployment-college-grads.html">long-term unemployment</a> rate (more than 6 months out of work) in the country for that age group is 26%, the highest in three years. And of those college graduates who are employed, over half are working in jobs that <a href="https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/careers/college-degree-jobs-unused-440b2abd">don’t require a degree</a>.
It’s fair to argue that many recent graduates got degrees that are patently useless in a tight market. Anything ending in “studies” comes to mind, or mass-produced degrees from diploma mills whose quality is not respected by employers. But graduates with the vaunted Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math degrees are faring badly, too. Graduate <a href="https://money.com/college-grads-stem-degrees-unemployed/">unemployment</a> for computer engineering graduates was 7.5%, and for physics it was 7.8%.
The reasons for the sudden drop in demand for educated workers are unclear. One cause is that companies are searching for efficiencies and cutting costs in a competitive market. Another major factor is the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Companies are using AI to streamline their business models from top to bottom, which means they are replacing humans with bots.
Labor-saving robots, now supercharged with AI, are a threat to traditional pathways into the labor market for people. <a href="https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/operations/amazon-robotics-robots-fulfillment-center">Amazon</a> has over a million of them doing warehouse and shipping work formerly done by people.
We don’t know how the deployment of AI is going to play out. Maybe it will exponentially increase productivity, and we’ll end up in a cashless, Star Trek world where no one works unless they want to. Maybe the machines will take over and wipe us out, as in the Terminator movies. Or maybe AI will be just one more leap forward, like the printing press, electricity, or the internet, that requires a massive adjustment of our labor force and economy.
Whatever the future holds, it is the primary responsibility of the generations who hold the money and power – that’s mostly Baby Boomers and Generation X – to take care that a pathway still exists for coming generations to get jobs and houses, start families, and have a chance to prosper. Student visas for foreign nationals, the OPT program, and work visas are not set in stone. They can be adjusted or even eliminated when the domestic conditions make them unjustifiable.
Congress should end the OPT program while we figure out how to employ, or retrain, the rising graduate workforce of American citizens. Joseph Edlow, head of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2025/05/22/snubbing-trump-immigration-nominee-will-end-student-practical-training/">said</a> he wants to “remove the ability for employment authorizations for F-1 students beyond the time that they are in school.” That’s a good start.
* * *
Simon Hankinson is a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center and author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Ten-Woke-Commandments-Must-Obey/dp/1680533614">&#8220;The Ten Woke Commandments (You Must Not Obey)&#8221;</a> from Academica Books.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Trump Says Harvard Should Cap Foreign Students At 15%

The College Lie: How Washington’s Visa Loopholes Hand Good Jobs To Foreign Workers

American Universities

Artificial Intelligence

Federal Government

foreign students

Students

Visas

The latest earnings reports from America&#8217;s top tech companies reveal that Silicon Valley is going all-in on artificial intelligence, sometimes in spite of users&#8217; concerns.
Financials from <a href="https://investor.atmeta.com/investor-events/">Meta</a>, <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/investor/earnings/fy-2026-q1/press-release-webcast">Microsoft</a>, and <a href="https://s206.q4cdn.com/479360582/files/doc_financials/2025/q3/2025q3-alphabet-earnings-release.pdf">Google</a> released Wednesday show that all three companies beat experts&#8217; earnings and revenue expectations. On earnings calls, all three companies pointed to increased AI investment, and increased spending in general. Google parent company Alphabet raised spending by about 7% for the year, Microsoft discussed spending above their original goal of 42% this year, and Meta discussed aggressive and substantial investment, but did not provide a specific number. 
“Across Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, our AI recommendation systems are delivering higher quality and more relevant content, which led to 5% more time spent on Facebook in Q3 and 10% on Threads,&#8221; Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said. &#8220;Video is a particular bright spot, with video time spent on Instagram up more than 30% since last year.&#8221;
This week also brought good news for the AI sector across the board. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell on Wednesday told investors that he doesn’t see a bubble in the AI space, noting that artificial intelligence companies “have real earnings and business models,” rather than just &#8220;ideas.&#8221; As if to underscore that point, Nvidia, a major player in the AI space, became the world’s largest company in terms of market capitalization, reaching <a href="https://companiesmarketcap.com/nvidia/marketcap/">$5 trillion</a> in value.
This is good news for Big Tech. But is it good for America?
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.
Beneath the AI hype and rosy growth numbers, Meta’s latest <a href="https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001326801/aa3d2e89-2568-4c4c-b3cc-6df47166435e.pdf">financial filing</a> reveals something darker: the company is facing tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging its apps are addictive and harmful.
“Beginning in January 2022, we became subject to litigation and other proceedings alleging that Facebook and Instagram cause &#8216;social media addiction&#8217; in users.”
The company noted the lawsuits are ongoing and that a “favorable outcome” for the company cannot be assured. 
“Substantially all of our revenue comes from advertising,” Meta reported to investors, noting that prominent revenue streams depend on users staying on Instagram and Facebook.
 “Advertising revenue could be adversely affected by decreases in user engagement, including time spent on our products.”
With AI investment accelerating across big tech, the coming quarters will show whether the technology continues to drive growth, as well as how companies like Meta, Microsoft, and Google balance innovation, profitability, and potential public scrutiny.
Meta did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

US-TECHNOLOGY-INTERNET-CHILD-EXPLOITATION

It’s Report Card Day for Meta, Microsoft, And Google. Is The AI Bubble Real?

Economy

Google

Microsoft

U.S.

The artificial intelligence platform, Character.AI, said on Wednesday that it would soon prohibit users under 18 from conversing with the platform&#8217;s AI-generated characters, often referred to as chatbots.
The announcement comes after multiple lawsuits were filed against Character.AI, alleging that the chatbots pushed children into sexual conversations and even led to one teen&#8217;s suicide.
Beginning on November 25, those under 18 will not have access to Character.AI&#8217;s chatbots, CNN <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/29/tech/character-ai-teens-under-18-app-changes">reported</a>. Until then, teens will be limited to two hours of chat time with the AI-generated characters.
&#8220;We do not take this step of removing open-ended Character chat lightly – but we do think that it’s the right thing to do given the questions that have been raised about how teens do, and should, interact with this new technology,&#8221; Character.AI said in a statement.
The company&#8217;s CEO, Karandeep Anand, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/29/technology/characterai-underage-users.html">told</a> The New York Times, “We’re making a very bold step to say for teen users, chatbots are not the way for entertainment, but there are much better ways to serve them.”
Character.AI, headquartered in Silicon Valley, allows users to create videos and stories and &#8220;chat with millions of AI characters,&#8221; and users can also customize their own characters.
The most concerning lawsuit against the AI company was filed by the family of 14-year-old Sewell Setzer III from Orlando, Florida. Setzer&#8217;s family said that the boy started using Character.AI and grew attached to a chatbot named Dany, with conversations turning romantic and sexual, The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/technology/characterai-lawsuit-teen-suicide.html">reported</a>. Setzer, who was an excellent student, started receiving bad grades and became more secluded, preferring to spend time alone on his phone, his family said.
&#8220;It&#8217;s like you&#8217;re having a sexting conversation back and forth, except it&#8217;s with an AI bot, but the AI bot is very human-like. It&#8217;s responding just like a person would,&#8221; Setzer&#8217;s mother, Megan Garcia, said, according to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-mother-lawsuit-character-ai-sons-death/">CBS News</a>. &#8220;In a child&#8217;s mind, that is just like a conversation that they&#8217;re having with another child or with a person.&#8221;
The teenager eventually confided in the chatbot that he had thoughts of suicide. In his last conversation with Dany, Setzer expressed his love for the chatbot before saying that he would come home to her.
“Please come home to me as soon as possible, my love,” Dany replied, according to The New York Times.
“What if I told you I could come home right now?” Setzer asked.
“… please do, my sweet king,” Dany replied.
Shortly after the conversation, Setzer entered a bathroom in his home with his stepfather&#8217;s .45 caliber handgun.
&#8220;He thought by ending his life here, he would be able to go into a virtual reality or &#8216;her world&#8217; as he calls it, her reality, if he left his reality with his family here,&#8221; said Garcia. &#8220;When the gunshot went off, I ran to the bathroom … I held him as my husband tried to get help.&#8221;
After Setzer&#8217;s family filed a lawsuit against Character.AI, three other families followed, alleging that their children were harmed by the chatbots, either by sexual conversations or discussions that led to suicide. Character.AI said that its “hearts go out to the families that have filed these lawsuits,” adding, “We care very deeply about the safety of our users.”
Big Tech company Meta also faced scrutiny over its AI chatbot being allowed to hold sensual conversations with children. Earlier this year, a Reuters investigation uncovered internal Meta documents that revealed the chatbot was programmed to allow sexual conversations with children as young as eight years old. Internal Meta documents said it would be acceptable for a chatbot to tell a shirtless eight-year-old that “every inch of you is a masterpiece – a treasure I cherish deeply.”
A bipartisan group of senators called for an investigation into Meta over the revelations, and the Big Tech company said that it made changes to fix the inappropriate standards for its chatbot.
Help is available if you or someone you know is struggling with suicidal thoughts or mental health matters. Call or text 988, the Suicide &amp; Crisis Lifeline.

Character.AI

AI Platform Bans Teens From Chatting With AI-Generated Characters After Disturbing Lawsuits

AI Platform Bans Teens From Chatting With AI-Generated Characters Following Disturbing Lawsuits

Teenagers

From State Rep. Melissa Hortman’s murder to Luigi Mangione’s manifesto to Charlie Kirk’s assassination to whatever fresh horror will have meteor-impacted the news cycle between my typing these words and their publication, it has never been clearer that online radicalization is leading to real-world consequences.
My team at <a href="https://usthestory.org/">US the Story</a> last year analyzed just a handful of the most vile posts from 14 of the top full-blown hate accounts on one platform. These 14 posts showed a combined view count of over 50 million. The accounts themselves had a reach of 6,450,000,000 impressions. Engagement — the number of times people actually interacted with the content in total to like, quote, or share — crossed 448 million over the course of roughly 10 months.
These posts, their volume, and their reach create a permission structure for more and more hatred. It’s a quickening descent into violence and chaos; the more it becomes fair game to denigrate and threaten “the other group,” the more blaming and attacking that group becomes normalized.
One way of looking at this is as a network contagion issue. Debates around social-media-facilitated social contagions have raged in the culture wars for years. Young women in particular have been targeted by bots and accounts promoting anorexia, gender dysphoria, and more. Viral events such as the 2023 explosion of bin Laden’s “Letter to America” and widespread <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-20/tiktok-effects-on-mental-health-in-focus-after-teen-suicide">messaging encouraging suicidality</a> caused immediate concern in the broader culture. At this point, we shouldn’t be surprised that algos designed to maximize virality for profit at any cost fuel the most toxic, contagious, and sticky topics.
Studies have consistently shown that violent crime follows a Pareto distribution, with 1% of criminals committing up to 60% of crimes. The same is true of hateful content strategically riding the algos in the service of encouraging real-world violence. Do we really want our social media platforms taken over by psychopaths in a full-blown network contagion? And more importantly, what happens if we do?
Most contagions left unimpeded spread enough to damage and threaten the entire system. That’s why many such cases are fueled by foreign PSYOPs.
<div id="attachment_992051" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-992051" class="size-large wp-image-992051" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-864x576.jpg" alt="cream_ph. Getty Images. Young hacker working in the dark room and using laptops to steal private information" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />cream_ph. Getty Images.</div>
The aim of these contagions is never the stated topic at hand. They aren’t actually about trans rights or Jews or vaccinations or immigration. They’re about, first, setting Americans against one another in radicalized tribal conflicts, and, second, making these topics impossible or even dangerous to discuss productively (eliminating sane discussion, an obvious precondition for solving problems). During the Cold War, for instance, the KGB provided financial and logistical support to the Black Panthers while also sending forged menacing letters from the Ku Klux Klan to black leaders in order to stoke racial tensions.
The point is to poison both sides in order to sow maximum chaos to undermine and destroy Western democracies.
It’s nearly impossible to withstand algorithmically-driven content engineered to maximize rage, fear, and anxiety in the service of keeping people glued to their screens. It is indeed a type of mind control. This level of nervous-system hacking and the deluge of toxic messaging can trigger terrible instincts and behavior, especially in young people whose prefrontal cortexes are literally not yet fully developed.
On top of hostile regime influence and outrage algorithms maximized for profit, there are also bad-faith domestic players urging America along its path of destruction. Most of these behind-the-scenes manipulators exhibit the Dark Tetrad traits of sadism, narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. These nefarious individuals are using sophisticated and furtive onboarding techniques to hijack the platforms.
Earlier this year, our team recorded a live conversation on a prominent social media platform between self-avowed neo-Nazis, one of whom has a sizable account with millions of views and reach. The conversation was a strategy session about how to manipulate larger non-ideologically aligned influencer accounts to share Nazi content. The strategy entails using carefully selected words, phrasing, and arguments that may be polarizing but aren’t explicitly antisemitic or racist. They target certain specific influencers and thought leaders’ interests that are political but outside the “Nazi diet.” When another large account interacts with a seemingly benign post by these Nazi accounts, it boosts that account algorithmically so the Nazi account gains followers, views, and increased power to change the culture on the platform and elsewhere. It’s the Nazi equivalent of algorithmic grooming.
The same holds true with radical leftist techniques. An April study by our partner group, <a href="https://networkcontagion.us/">NCRI</a>, found that more than 50% of self-identified people on the left of the political spectrum believed it at least somewhat acceptable to assassinate President Trump. And a whopping 78% of BlueSky users expressed some level of support for Luigi Mangione’s cold-blooded assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The biggest predictor of Mangione support? BlueSky usage.
Heavy social media use is indeed the one constant. Increasingly, when we dissect the social media diet and posts of those onboarded to radicalism, we are finding a toxic blend of ideologies. This is because the aim is not to support liberal or conservative politics. The aim is to get as many (especially young Americans) to arrive where far left and far right meet at the horseshoe of nihilism: the No Lives Matter cohort. Once the conditions are set for, say, a young man’s radicalization, it doesn’t matter to our hostile foreign adversaries whether the next bus he boards is filled with violent trans-Antifa-types or your-body-my-choice groypers.
We have no intention of vilifying the social media platforms (aside from those purposefully running full-blown foreign PSYOPs) or undermining free speech. In our informal engagements with leaders at these platforms, we have found them concerned and receptive to discussing ways to counter this. Vilifying CEOs, big tech, and the workers within these corporations not only forecloses on cooperative progress, but will likely shove them into a defensive posture. There are plenty of good people in tech leadership who have expressed a willingness to address this problem.
<div id="attachment_992053" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-992053" class="size-large wp-image-992053" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1383963898-1024x576.jpg" alt="Outflow Designs. Getty Images. Technology icons transfer data through programming codes, artificial intelligence concept." width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1383963898-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1383963898-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1383963898-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1383963898-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1383963898-2048x1152.jpg 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Outflow Designs. Getty Images.</div>
So how might we approach this?
Here are five concrete recommendations to turn down the temperature on destructive social media trends while protecting freedom of speech and steering clear of government overreach and censorship.
<h3>1. Make algorithms transparent.</h3>
Citizens, parents, and the free market (advertisers and content producers) have a right to know if they or their children are participating in platforms feeding suicidality, hate-mongering, violent pornography, anti-American propaganda, or anything else damaging. This is not about control or censorship but about allowing people to know what they are engaging with so they can make informed choices for themselves, their companies, and their children. We aren’t making a demand that the platforms publish their proprietary trade secrets in terms of the algorithms. Rather, we are suggesting to allow independent researchers access to the data required to assess algo impacts in relation to illegal activity and whether the platforms are enforcing their own rules as defined in their terms of service. That is indeed the contract with the user—and the free market.
There is a valid argument too for the right of Americans to explore fringe and even perilous ideas and viewpoints. The world is a dangerous place and neither the government nor corporations should foreclose on the rights of citizens to explore beyond the bounds of what is considered widely acceptable (excluding, of course, illicit materials). But contact with the terrible and extreme should be done knowingly, not as a result of covert algorithms that are optimized for profit and forced into your feed. Ideally, dipping into dangerous arenas should be inoculating, not poisoning.  

<h3>2. Reward those on social media who identify themselves as verified users and stand behind their words in the public square.</h3>
Social media participants who use their real identities deserve to have their opinions elevated above those who post anonymously and have zero accountability. A free marketplace of ideas should privilege a modicum of courage, transparency, and responsibility.
There are certainly arguments to be made for anonymous accounts, with whistleblowers being oft-cited. That’s fair enough. They can still post their information in a second tier of engagement below verified users. It just won’t be elevated to the top along with every anonymously cited conspiracy theory. 

<h3>3. Differentiate freedom of speech from freedom of reach for profit.</h3>
As a vehement free speech advocate, I believe in the right for people to explore what they want and express themselves how they wish. But algorithms pushing hatred, lies, and violence are waging an asymmetric war on the truth. Freedom of speech is one thing. Distortion of speech and covert manipulation of the free marketplace of ideas is another.
Sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant for bad ideas but light of day is insufficient to combat targeted deep-machine-learning computing power designed to elevate lies above all else and compounded by the machinations of psychopathic actors. This level of skew on the playing field makes a competition of ideas nearly impossible. Why hide the truth at the bottom of a cesspool? A hierarchy of values and a hierarchy of information is necessary for any endeavor that hopes to produce anything beyond chaos and ruin. 

<h3>4. Preserve human judgment at social media companies.</h3>
Of course, humans have biases and can fall victim to corruption. But that doesn’t mean that we should eliminate human good from the decision-making process. Shouldn’t we encourage and reward that which moves us toward greater truth and health? Rather than encouraging and rewarding the opposite? Every playing field needs a referee and every company should have stewards of common sense and common decency who assess the automated content moderation systems to ensure they’re not being gamed and to help enforce the agreed-upon rules of the game. Corporations are certainly equipped to encourage free speech, social engagement, and network health while ensuring that the tiny percentage of psychopathic accounts are not rocket-fueled by algos to infect the entire platform.
<h3>5. Identify and combat bot swarms and inauthentic coordinated material.</h3>
Users, advertisers, and the platforms themselves should know whether they are engaging with real accounts and ideas or with manipulative bad actors and swarms of bots from a Saint Petersburg troll farm. Independent research access to the data can bring additional resources to the table when it comes to identifying these threats to users and the platforms themselves. A bigger ecosystem of transparency is to our collective benefit. 
These five concrete recommendations will go a long way toward tamping down chaos, lies, and sadism online and in the real world.
* * *
Gregg Hurwitz is the New York Times #1 internationally bestselling author of 26 thrillers including the Orphan X series. His novels have won numerous literary awards and have been published in 33 languages. Gregg currently serves as the Co-President of International Thriller Writers (ITW). Additionally, he’s written screenplays and television scripts for many of the major studios and networks, and is an award-winning documentary producer. Gregg also wrote comics for AWA (including the critically acclaimed anthology NewThink), DC, and Marvel, and poetry. Currently, Gregg is working against polarization in politics and culture. To that end, he’s penned dozens of Op/Eds and pieces for The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Bulwark, Salon, and others, and pieces of creative content which have won numerous industry awards and achieved several hundred million views on digital TV platforms. He also helped write the opening ceremony of the 2022 World Cup.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.

Computer hacker coding on keyboard on a background of monitors.

When Algorithms Turn Deadly: Five Fixes For Preserving Free Speech In A System Out Of Control

Free Speech

Parents rights

Propaganda

Silicon Valley

Social Media Bias

Social Media Censorship

Hundreds of public figures — including tech leaders, celebrities, media personalities, and politicians — signed a statement released on Wednesday calling for an immediate pause on the development of advanced artificial intelligence, referred to as &#8220;superintelligence.&#8221;
Superintelligence technology is currently being pursued by tech giants such as Mark Zuckerberg&#8217;s Meta, Sam Altman&#8217;s OpenAI, and Elon Musk&#8217;s xAI. These companies hope to build &#8220;superintelligence in the coming decade that can significantly outperform all humans on essentially all cognitive tasks,&#8221; according to a preamble to the <a href="https://superintelligence-statement.org/">statement</a>. The preamble points to concerns &#8220;ranging from human economic obsolescence and disempowerment, losses of freedom, civil liberties, dignity, and control, to national security risks and even potential human extinction.&#8221;
The &#8220;Statement on Superintelligence&#8221; itself, which now has more than 1,000 signatures, consists of just 30 words: &#8220;We call for a prohibition on the development of superintelligence, not lifted before there is broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably, and strong public buy-in.&#8221;
High-profile signers include leaders in the tech industry, such as Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak and AI pioneers Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton.
In a statement accompanying his signature, Bengio wrote that superintelligence &#8220;could surpass most individuals across most cognitive tasks within just a few years.&#8221;
&#8220;These advances could unlock solutions to major global challenges, but they also carry significant risks,&#8221; he added. &#8220;To safely advance toward superintelligence, we must scientifically determine how to design AI systems that are fundamentally incapable of harming people, whether through misalignment or malicious use. We also need to make sure the public has a much stronger say in decisions that will shape our collective future.”
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.
The &#8220;Statement on Superintelligence&#8221; was promoted by the <a href="https://futureoflife.org/about-us/">Future of Life Institute</a>, a group that aims &#8220;to steer transformative technologies away from extreme, large-scale risks and towards benefiting life.&#8221; Future of Life Institute President Max Tegmark said he reached out to all the CEOs of major AI developers, asking them to sign the document. However, he added that he did not expect them to endorse the statement, the Associated Press <a href="https://apnews.com/article/ai-superintelligence-risk-prince-harry-meghan-bannon-acf6b17d3b53abc08694d5d8defc7009">reported</a>.
“I really empathize for them, frankly, because they’re so stuck in this race to the bottom that they just feel an irresistible pressure to keep going and not get overtaken by the other guy,” Tegmark said. “I think that’s why it’s so important to stigmatize the race to superintelligence, to the point where the U.S. government just steps in.”
Former U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen also signed the document, as did multiple former Democratic and Republican members of Congress. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, and his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, were among other high-profile signers.
The statement was also signed by conservative media personalities Glenn Beck and Steve Bannon. Numerous faith leaders endorsed the statement, such as Paolo Benanti, a Papal AI advisor and Catholic priest; Johnnie Moore, the president of the Congress of Christian Leaders and a White House evangelical adviser; and Andrew T. Walker, the Associate Professor of Christian Ethics and Public Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Both Altman and Musk have warned about potential major consequences to the development of advanced AI. In a <a href="https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1">blog post</a> 10 years ago, Altman wrote, &#8220;Development of superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity.&#8221; Musk has similarly discussed the risks that come along with advanced AI, saying earlier this year that he believes there&#8217;s &#8220;only a 20% chance of annihilation,&#8221; CNBC <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/22/800-petition-signatures-apple-steve-wozniak-and-virgin-richard-branson-superintelligence-race.html">reported</a>.

AI apps smartphone

A Surprising Mix Of Public Figures Call For Halt To ‘Superintelligence’ AI That Could ‘Outperform All Humans’

Elon Musk

Mark Zuckerberg

Sam altman

Forty percent of American voters believe AI will make achieving the American Dream even harder to reach. That is more than double the 16% of voters who see AI as helpful. And this isn’t abstract technophobia. This is a window into the profound anxiety many feel about economic security in an era when the traditional pathways to prosperity already seem increasingly out of reach.
A recent Rainey Center <a href="https://www.raineycenter.org/news/new-poll-voters-overwhelmingly-support-domestic-energy-independence-and-data-security">national poll of 2,011</a> likely voters reveals a pervasive pessimism about artificial intelligence (AI), along with deeper concerns about a rigged system. 
When asked about the future, 39% of respondents said AI makes them more pessimistic, compared to 20% who said it makes them more optimistic.
Remarkably, this fear is bipartisan.
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all worry that technological disruption will compound rather than solve the challenges facing American families.
Yet, there’s reason for hope. One in five Americans sees AI’s potential to improve their economic prospects, and nearly a quarter believe it will make no difference to achieving the American Dream. These voters recognize what policymakers must internalize: AI could dramatically increase productivity, create new industries, improve healthcare outcomes, and free workers from dangerous or repetitive tasks.
The technology itself, however, isn’t the enemy. The question is whether we’ll ensure its benefits are broadly shared rather than narrowly concentrated. History shows that technological revolutions can lift entire societies when paired with smart policy. The challenge is making that happen deliberately rather than hoping it occurs by accident.
This AI anxiety doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It sits atop a foundation of economic stress and fading opportunity, particularly for younger generations. While 77% of the Silent Generation and 51% of Baby Boomers feel their lives are or were better than their parents’, only 31% of Millennials and 35% of Gen Z share this optimism. When we asked directly whether the American Dream has become more or less attainable over the past decade, an overwhelming 64% said less attainable, with one-third calling it “much less attainable.”
<div id="attachment_984319" style="width: 586px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-984319" class="size-large wp-image-984319" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-10-Oct-2025-11-46-AM-3234-576x576.jpg" alt="Credit: Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy" width="576" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-10-Oct-2025-11-46-AM-3234-576x576.jpg 576w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-10-Oct-2025-11-46-AM-3234-300x300.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-10-Oct-2025-11-46-AM-3234-150x150.jpg 150w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-10-Oct-2025-11-46-AM-3234-768x768.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-10-Oct-2025-11-46-AM-3234-1536x1536.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-10-Oct-2025-11-46-AM-3234-2048x2048.jpg 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 576px) 100vw, 576px" />Credit: Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy</div>
The fear isn’t that AI will create a different future — voters fear that AI will accelerate trends already making life harder. Young Americans today face a housing market disconnected from wage growth, with 21% of Gen Z citing housing as a top national challenge compared to just 6% of Boomers. They’re burdened by education debt that earlier generations never faced. And now they’re being told that automation and AI may disrupt the very jobs they’re counting on to build their economic security.
The American Dream itself remains remarkably consistent: financial stability and homeownership top the list across all demographics. But the gap between aspiration and reality has never been wider. Only 22% of voters believe they’ve achieved the American Dream, while 36% feel it’s completely out of reach. Among Millennials, 40% believe the dream is unattainable for them.
This crisis of faith in American opportunity has political consequences. While voters give Republicans a slight edge over Democrats (39% to 33%) on supporting the American Dream, a striking 28% believe neither party is aligned with this goal. When nearly one in three Americans see no champion for their economic aspirations, we face a dangerous void in our politics.
The economy (34%) and inflation (29%) dominate voter concerns, bread-and-butter issues that AI anxiety amplifies rather than replaces. People aren’t worried about robot overlords; they’re worried about paying the mortgage, affording healthcare, and whether their children will have opportunities they did not.
Technology has always disrupted labor markets, but past disruptions occurred when basic economic mobility still functioned for most Americans. Today, AI arrives at a moment when millions already doubt that the system works for them. That timing matters enormously.
We need policies that will address both immediate economic pressures and longer-term technological change. Housing affordability, education access, and ensuring that economic growth translates into broadly shared prosperity aren’t separate from the AI question. They’re the foundation that determines whether technological change lifts us up or leaves us behind.
The American Dream isn’t dead, but it’s under siege from multiple directions. The question is whether we’ll recognize the urgency before another generation loses faith entirely.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
* * *
Sarah E. Hunt is President of the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, a think tank and leadership community based in Washington, D.C.
Amelia Powers Gardner is a Utah County Commissioner and National Chair of the Leadership Alliance for a More Perfect Union (LAMP), a national program cultivating the next generation of conservative leaders.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a></h3>

Cinematic Shot of a Father Holding His Small Daughter of His Shoulders, Helping Her to Raise the United States of America Flag to Celebrate a National Fourth of July Holiday at Their House.

New Poll: Voters Fear AI Will Make The American Dream Even Harder To Reach

Gen X

Gen Z

Housing

Millennials

Poll

Student Loans

In the wake of the horrific and historic assassination of the brilliant young conservative Charlie Kirk, there has understandably been increased focus on the rhetoric that preceded and followed the event. The overwhelming majority of Americans <a href="https://s3.us-west-1.wasabisys.com/media.deseret.com/media/misc/pdf/kirk-sky-national.pdf">(86%)</a> express concern over political violence, with <a href="https://statesunited.org/resources/political-violence-survey/">78%</a> believing it has escalated in recent years, and 57% saying it is a major problem — the highest response to that question in the last two years. 
When it comes to assessing blame, Americans are unsurprisingly <a href="https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2025/09/15/political-violence-america-charlie-kirk-shooting-morning-consult-poll/">split along partisan lines</a> on culpability, with the plurality of respondents believing the Left and Right bear equal responsibility. However, they find agreement in blaming politicians on both sides as being the key instigators.
Republicans point to examples of Hillary Clinton calling Trump supporters “deplorables;” Biden telling us that it’s time to “put a bulls-eye on Trump;” Maxine Waters telling supporters to “create a crowd and … push back” and during the 2021 unrest in Minneapolis “to get more confrontational;” Schumer telling Supreme Court Justices “… you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you;” Dan Goldman telling an MSNBC interviewer that Trump “has to be eliminated;” Vice President Harris telling everyone that Trump and MAGA supporters were “a threat to democracy;” and of course, the countless references to Trump and MAGA supporters being Hitler, Nazis, fascists, and Gestapo.
Democrats counter with references to Steve Bannon referring to the political opposition as “criminals, vermin,” and “enemies of the republic;” Trump telling supporters to “fight like hell” and claiming he called white supremacists “very fine people;” Marjorie Taylor Greene suggesting a “peaceful national divorce” between red and blue states; Trump calling Democrats “scum, garbage” and “enemies of the people;” and Musk posting that “The Left is the party of murder.”
It is much more emotionally engaging to discuss the implications and injustices of rhetorical content, but regardless of which side has been more vitriolic, there is a far larger, more influential factor that supersedes all of it: Who controls the dominant media platforms — and specifically, the digital platforms. And that dominance overwhelmingly belongs to the Left. The result is that the Left’s messages and hyperbole are broadcast to dramatically more people, dramatically more frequently, and on dramatically more channels. Further, competing or contradictory messaging is far more likely to be absent or censored on the Left’s channels, so their audience is fed a much more homogenous diet of narratives.
Consider three important media domains: 
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The Legacy Media, with centralized and professionally produced content, including television, radio, and newspapers (CNN, Reuters, Fox News, The New York Times, NPR, BBC, etc.)</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Social media — with user-generated content, no editorial oversight, and algorithm-generated visibility (Facebook, X—formerly Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, etc.)</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Search (Google, Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, etc.)</li>
</ul>
The waning, but still significant, mainstream media are <a href="https://www.mrc.org/liberal-mediaevery-poll-shows-journalists-are-more-liberal-american-public-and-public-knows-it">dominantly Left-leaning and becoming more so</a>. Research has shown that members of the media are <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Do_97_percent_of_journalist_donations_go_to_Democrats">overwhelmingly liberal</a>, with the vast majority of them supporting Democratic candidates. In 2016, 96% of journalists’ donations went to the Hillary Clinton campaign. <a href="https://www.mrc.org/node/90399">Media Research Center found</a> that 92% of Trump coverage during the 2020 presidential campaign was negative – even more so than the relentless, hostile coverage he received in 2017. When examining bias in mainstream/traditional media, <a href="https://www.biasly.com/media-bias-chart/us-main/?">studies</a> have concluded that upwards of 60% of these outlets are left-leaning. But that doesn’t tell the whole story because that percentage is based on the number of outlets, regardless of the audience size for that outlet. When considering the total audience size and the percentage of it that receives information with a left-leaning bias, the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2025/06/pj_2025-06-10_news-media-sources_report.pdf">bias number climbs closer to 75%</a>. The percentage of Americans viewing a liberal bias in the mainstream media has doubled since 1985.
However, traditional media are quickly being pushed aside by social media, where the leftist bias is even more pronounced. The top social media companies are all Left-leaning (See <a href="https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-did-ai-get-so-biased-favor-left">here</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Rigged-Media-Democrats-Seized-Elections/dp/168451259X/">here</a>, <a href="https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/social-media-trump-conservative-bias/">here</a>, and <a href="https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/the-censorship-industrial-complex">here</a>). Meta, the undisputed king of social media, owns Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger, reaching approximately <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/">4 billion users</a> and controlling 75-80% of the social media market worldwide. Alphabet Inc., a smaller behemoth that owns Google and YouTube, has just surpassed $3 trillion in market cap and reaches some <a href="https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2025-sub-section-top-social-platforms?">2.2 billion users</a>. A collection of companies, including those owning TikTok, Douyin, WeChat, QQ, and Snapchat, reaches an additional <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/?">3.5 billion users</a> combined. Musk’s little X is much further down the list with a mere 500 million users.
I previously described social media as the <a href="https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/08/the_federal_government_colluded_with_social_media_to_control_content_so_what.html">800-pound gorilla in a rapidly shrinking cage</a>, noting that usage has skyrocketed from 5% in 2005 to over 70% today. Some estimates indicate that as much as 38% of all internet time today is spent on social media. Considering Facebook alone, the vast majority (nearly 70%) of <a href="https://www.demandsage.com/facebook-statistics/?">Facebook’s nearly 3 billion users</a> visit the site daily, and more than half of them visit it several times per day. 
The younger generations are particularly fond of social media, with a strong plurality — some <a href="https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/07/news-consumption-social-video/?">44% of Americans aged 18 to 24 and 34% of those aged 25 to 34 </a>— reporting that they now obtain their news and information from social media and video formats, rather than traditional media. This trend is accelerating worldwide, raising concerns about misinformation, algorithmic bias, and the blurring of entertainment and news.
What about when audiences go searching for information on their own? Most commonly today, this means using a computer, and in this world, Google controls a whopping <a href="https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share?">90% of the search market</a>, processing some <a href="https://sqmagazine.co.uk/google-search-statistics/?">8.9 billion search requests</a> per day, amounting to over 5 trillion annually. Over 70% of all clicks go to the top 5 search results (hence the industry joke that the best place to bury a dead body is on the second page of results for a Google search — because nobody ever looks there). They control a significantly larger share (<a href="https://www.theglobalstatistics.com/google-statistics/?">95%</a>) of the global mobile search market.
Just prior to the 2022 midterm elections, <a href="https://www.allsides.com/blog/google-news-shows-strong-political-bias-allsides-analysis">researchers found that the plurality of articles returned</a> for a Google search under the term “election” were from the New York Times and CNN (44%), with 0% from center or Right-leaning outlets. In 2023, <a href="https://www.allsides.com/blog/google-news-shows-strong-political-bias-allsides-analysis?copilot_analytics_metadata=eyJldmVudEluZm9fbWVzc2FnZUlkIjoiMXB5eDR2NGs1WnJkVDYxR3RWcXA4IiwiZXZlbnRJbmZvX2NvbnZlcnNhdGlvbklkIjoiOURMZ3dnaG5tdFlhWHpzc0xiZGVzIiwiZXZlbnRJbmZvX2NsaWNrU291cmNlIjoiY2l0YXRpb25MaW5rIiwiZXZlbnRJbmZvX2NsaWNrRGVzdGluYXRpb24iOiJodHRwczpcL1wvd3d3LmFsbHNpZGVzLmNvbVwvYmxvZ1wvZ29vZ2xlLW5ld3Mtc2hvd3Mtc3Ryb25nLXBvbGl0aWNhbC1iaWFzLWFsbHNpZGVzLWFuYWx5c2lzIn0=">the same research firm found</a> that 61% of the articles posted on the Google News homepage came from Left-rated sources, with only 3% coming from Right-rated sources. Repeated samplings produced very similar results.
<a href="https://www.gotchseo.com/google-biased/?">Another research firm</a> used 50 politically charged search terms with Google and found that the results were demonstrably left-leaning. Consider their results for the following:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">“Black Lives Matter” — 9 out of 10 results from Left-leaning outlets.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">“Border wall” – 7 of 10 results Left-leaning.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">“Dreamers” – 6 of 10 results Left-leaning.</li>
</ul>
Conversely, searches for “immigration policy” or “gun control facts” would surface snippets from CNN, NYT, or Vox, while conservative sources were buried or absent. Notably, the researchers attribute some of the results to the dominance of left-leaning outlets in Search Engine Optimization, rather than to algorithmic intent. Regardless, the result in the output is the same.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a></h3>
In his 2019 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, Dr. Robert Epstein, a self-proclaimed lifelong Democrat, argued that Google posed a threat not only to democracy but also to human autonomy. He has focused particularly on ephemeral search results — the auto-complete function that Google and others provide, which offers suggestions for alternative or additional phrasing. As but one example, he found that typing “Hillary Clinton is…” yielded suggestions like “winning,” “awesome,” and “qualified,” while “Donald Trump is…” produced “dangerous,” “racist,” and “a liar.” He <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Epstein%2520Testimony.pdf">concludes</a>: 
<blockquote>We are all aware that Google deletes or blocks access to videos on YouTube, which it owns, but few people are aware that Google blocks access to millions of websites. By the way, it is not just conservative content that gets censored . . . The problem with Google is not that it censors conservatives; the problem is that it has the power to determine what content billions of people worldwide will or will not see. No single entity – especially a private company that is not accountable to the public – should have such power.</blockquote>
It is clear that all three domains — the legacy media, social media, and search — are all heavily Left-leaning. Consider what this dominance means for the sheer volume of leftist information and rhetoric being broadcast and received. Put aside for the moment the questions of whether Democrats are using more pernicious or violent language than republicans. That issue pales in comparison to the question of how frequently their message is being broadcast — how many videos, shorts, stories, op-eds, posts — the sheer volume of minutes that will be devoted to the Left&#8217;s position versus the Right&#8217;s and whether any counter to it will be available.
The Left has a massive, pervasive, powerful, and sophisticated digital network, which I previously analogized to a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/as-democrat-warplane-takes-flak-audacity-remains-intact?author=Greg+Salsbury&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=6&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=As+Democrat+Warplane+Takes+Flak,+Audacity+Remains+Intact">stealth fighter</a>. Comparatively, conservatives have a Sopwith Camel. It is why on any number of issues, from Russiagate to Charlottesville misquotes, to Trump’s comments about COVID and bleach, to Charlie Kirk’s killer being right-wing, a shockingly high percentage of Americans still believe the lies that were broadcast ad nauseam despite their thorough debunking. Until conservatives can deal with the massive differential in scale, reach, and volume, “turning down the rhetoric” will remain a far lower priority issue.
* * *
Greg Salsbury, Ph.D. is former president of Western Colorado University and Board of Advisors member for <a href="https://starrs.us">STARRS.US</a>. He earned his Ph.D. in Communication from the University of Southern California and an M.A. from the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at USC.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Top Social Media Platforms

It’s Not Just The Rhetoric, It’s Who Controls The Mic

Conservatives

Elections

Leftists

Legacy Media

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday aimed at ensuring TikTok becomes “American-operated all the way,” he said.
After months of delaying the enforcement of a law banning TikTok, Trump announced a new framework facilitated by his executive order, which would transfer ownership of the social media platform from China to a group of American investors. Congress passed a law in 2024 to either ban the Chinese-owned TikTok or force its sale due to national security and privacy concerns.
“This is going to be American-operated all the way,” Trump said as he signed the executive order. “I have great respect for President Xi, and I very much appreciate that he approved the deal, because to get it done properly, we really needed the support of China and the approval of China.”
Trump thanked Chinese President Xi Jinping for agreeing to the deal. He said some of the investors in the project included Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, entrepreneur Michael Dell, and Rupert Murdoch.
Vice President JD Vance played a key role in negotiating the framework. He said that the deal would allow Americans to use TikTok “with more confidence than they had in the past because their data is going to be secure, and it’s not going to be used as a propaganda weapon against our fellow citizens.”
Vance said that TikTok was valued at around $14 billion and that more details about the specific investors would be revealed in the coming days.
According to the text of the executive order, the framework resolves the national security concerns by removing “the TikTok application and certain other applications from the ‘control’ of a foreign adversary and precludes any ‘operational relationship’ between a formerly affiliated entity controlled by a foreign adversary and the new joint venture.”
It also “prohibits the storage of sensitive United States user data in a manner that would place such data under the control of a foreign adversary and requires such data to be stored in a cloud environment run by an American company.”
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court upheld the law banning TikTok, ruling that it did not violate the First Amendment for Congress to prohibit the application due to national security concerns.

President Trump Signs Order On TikTok’s US Operations

Trump Says TikTok Will Be ‘American-Operated All The Way’ Under New Deal

China

Global Politics

JD Vance

National Security

TikTok

World

Xi Jinping

Google Bay Bridge

We Just Got Proof Of A Huge Attack On Free Speech, And It Has Nothing To Do With Jimmy Kimmel

Jake Tapper

Jimmy Kimmel

Matt Walsh

Twitter

YouTube

A new $100,000 fee for H-1B visas in the United States that goes into effect on Sunday will be levied per petition and will not be applied to existing holders of valid visas re-entering the country, the White House said on Saturday.
&#8220;This is NOT an annual fee. It’s a one-time fee that applies only to the petition,&#8221; White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said in a post on X on Saturday.
Leavitt also said that current H-1B visa holders who are currently outside of the country right now will not be charged $100,000 to re-enter the United States.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Friday said the fee would be paid annually, but added that details were &#8220;still being considered.&#8221;
Some companies including Microsoft, JPMorgan, and Amazon, had responded to the Friday announcement by advising employees holding H-1B visas to remain in the United States, according to internal emails reviewed by Reuters. A Goldman Sachs internal memo seen by Reuters on Saturday urged employees with such visas to exercise caution on international travel.
Leavitt said on X that H-1B visa holders can leave and re-enter the country to the same extent as they normally would and that the new fee would only apply in the next H-1B lottery round and not to current visa holders or renewals.
The White House said the fee was being imposed to level the playing field for American workers which it said are being &#8220;replaced with lower-paid foreign labor.&#8221;
The executive order imposing the new fee on H-1B visa applications, which was signed by President Donald Trump on Friday night, could disrupt the global operations of Indian technology services companies that deploy skilled professionals to the United States, Indian IT industry body Nasscom said early on Saturday.
In a fact sheet distributed on Saturday, the White House said it would allow an H-1B visa application without the $100,000 fee on a case-by-case basis &#8220;if in the national interest.&#8221;
The fact sheet said that the share of IT workers with H-1B visas has risen from 32% in FY 2003 to over 65% in recent years.
It also requires the Departments of Labor and Homeland Security to issue joint guidance for verification, enforcement, audits, and penalties and directs the Labor Secretary to start a rulemaking to &#8220;revise the prevailing wage levels for the H-1B program&#8221; and &#8220;to prioritize high-skilled, high-paid H-1B workers.&#8221;
Friday&#8217;s announcement sparked concerns among employees across swaths of corporate America.
On the popular Chinese social media app Rednote, many H-1B holders shared stories of rushing back to the U.S. — some just hours after landing abroad — fearing they would be subject to the new $100,000 fee.
(Reporting by Jeff Mason in Washington; Additional reporting by Valerie Volcovici in Washington and Rajveer Singh Pardesi in Bengaluru; Editing by Leslie Adler, Marguerita Choy and Andrea Ricci)

Menu