When I was 36 weeks pregnant with my third child and too exhausted to argue, my husband packed his GoPro for our family vacation and documented the whole thing. He recorded the ride down, the condo antics, and the cuteness of our kids splashing in the surf. He recorded mini golf and a boardwalk ice cream stop; he interviewed the kids and family members who came along. He then edited it all, added music, and made us look like one of those influencer families. I love having the memories, but it was a lot of work for everyone.
Those videos still exist somewhere on YouTube and have approximately 100 views total if we&#8217;re lucky. Half of those are from family members. If you would ask my children tomorrow if they wanted to become influencers, they would say, &#8220;Yes! Please!&#8221; But just because they want something, that doesn&#8217;t make it good for them.
In &#8220;Like, Follow, Subscribe,&#8221; the buzzy new book about the potential harm of influencers showcasing their kids online 24/7, author Fortesa Latifi highlights families across the internet who record their kids and share their lives for clicks. Some, like the LaBrants, are well-known. Others are only familiar to hardcore YouTube fans.
The children Latifi interviewed almost all have mixed feelings about growing up under the watchful eye of the internet. They say they didn&#8217;t love it but in many cases felt guilted into it because of the income and opportunities that could only come from sharing their entire lives online.
I’ll start with the extremes because Latifi does: Ruby Franke, of the channel 8 Passengers, was arrested on child abuse charges. But even the influencers doing everything right still might be doing something a little wrong. 
One influencer identified only by the pseudonym Sam said she once bribed her kids, offering them $500 to dance on camera while promoting a product, which would earn the family $40,000. The kids said no. Sam said she then had to &#8220;manipulate and guilt trip the kids.&#8221;
&#8220;This is our business. This is what we do,&#8221; she told them. &#8220;This is our family job. If we owned a farm, you would all be out milking cows. No questions asked … so get in line and let&#8217;s do this.&#8221;
Sam admitted that she watched her &#8220;moral filter&#8221; go out the window as the money began pouring in. She also noted that the longer she stays involved, the easier it is to justify. &#8220;The deeper you get into it, the more you numb out from it,&#8221; she told Latifi. &#8220;There&#8217;s no room for misgivings. There&#8217;s no room for a conscience.&#8221;
At least Sam is honest about the lasting damage she&#8217;s likely inflicting on the entire family, even if she&#8217;s not brave enough to own it by using her real name. Other influencers featured in the book had even less shame and more justifications.
There&#8217;s the unfortunate fact that negative content gets more clicks, and then more money. A video titled &#8220;Our First Pet Died&#8221; featuring a thumbnail of an adorable one of the LaBrant children sobbing has racked up 34 million views, as the author notes. This turned out to be clickbait — because it&#8217;s not the family dog that died, but rather the goldfish.
It gets way worse than that. Family Fun Pack filmed reactions to their children&#8217;s grandmother&#8217;s funeral and earned just under 2 million views.
Another influencer named Jordan Cheyenne faced backlash after accidentally uploading a video of herself coaching her son to cry after finding out his dog was fatally ill. &#8220;No, Mom, I&#8217;m seriously crying,&#8221; he can be heard saying, and Cheyenne instructs him to look sadder and, above all, focus on the camera. &#8220;Come closer for the video … let them see your mouth,&#8221; she can be heard saying.
Some kids are happy to go along with what their YouTuber parents are doing, but what choice do they have, and what alternative do they know? Many have been on camera for the world since they were in utero. These influencers often justify their kids&#8217; inclusion by pointing out that they don&#8217;t complain. But some of them actually do complain.
The book is filled with shocking anecdotes that make a strong case for throwing all influencer parent iPhones into the ocean, but the author somehow also manages to fixate on conservatives. She positively quotes progressive journalist Taylor Lorenz&#8217;s book, &#8220;Extremely Online: The Untold Story of Fame, Influence, and Power on the Internet.&#8221; For all the negative things Latifi could say about the LaBrants, one of her chief complaints is that they are &#8220;almost impossibly&#8221; blond with blue eyes and that they &#8220;love Jesus&#8221; and choose to include that in their videos.
Latifi takes the most offense to tradwife mommy bloggers, as many liberals tend to do. &#8220;While perhaps it&#8217;s not a feminist act to create paid labor out of unpaid labor, it is an act of agency within the confines of the patriarchy. It&#8217;s why so many mom influencers and family vloggers are Mormon,” she writes. (What is she even talking about?)
&#8220;The trad wife performs an imitation of the past because the present is so uncertain,&#8221; Latifi goes on. &#8220;She drapes herself in prairie dresses and flowing aprons, smiles into the camera that captures her every move even as she insists she&#8217;s not working at all.&#8221;
She concludes that these influencers are wrongly promising &#8220;there is meaning and beauty to be found in motherhood.&#8221; There is, of course, meaning and beauty in motherhood, but — she&#8217;s right — not by oversharing for clicks on YouTube.
By the final chapters, that anti-conservative streak stops being subtext and becomes the whole argument, veering so far from the subject of family vlogging that it ends up saying more about the author&#8217;s politics than about kids on camera.
&#8220;As I&#8217;m writing this, Donald Trump is president for the second time, and the experience of American motherhood has never been more threatened,&#8221; she writes. &#8220;Pregnant women are dying from being denied access to abortions. They&#8217;re bleeding out in hospital parking lots and crossing state lines to access care.&#8221;
None of that has much to do with whether a nine-year-old should be coached to cry on camera about a dying dog or whether a toddler should grow up dancing for diaper brands. Those questions don&#8217;t need a chapter on the current occupant of the White House. They need what every parent already has: a phone in one hand, and the willingness to put it down.
***
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream</a>, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

Gemini_Generated_Image_yaxwtpyaxwtpyaxw (1)

The Ugly Truth Hiding Behind Picture Perfect Family Influencers

Children

Influencers

Upstream

YouTube

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday launched an online cooking series aimed at helping Americans prepare healthy, budget-friendly meals as part of the Trump administration&#8217;s &#8220;Make America Healthy Again&#8221; initiative.
The new series, &#8220;The Real Food Show,&#8221; features Kennedy traveling across the country to meet with chefs and culinary experts who demonstrate recipes using minimally processed ingredients.
“Inspired by President Trump&#8217;s Make America Healthy Again agenda, Secretary Kennedy is bringing the Dietary Guidelines for Americans to life and showing that cooking with real food can be practical, approachable, and affordable for every family,” the Department of Health and Human Services <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/real-food-show/index.html">said</a> in a statement.
“Every episode is packed with affordable, budget-friendly recipes and easy cooking techniques designed to save you time and money,” the department added.
In a promotional video announcing the series, Kennedy <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWBP4REwZeY">said</a> the goal is to encourage Americans to embrace healthier eating habits through simple home cooking. 
“Thanks to President Trump, we flipped the food pyramid and put real food back to where it belongs — at the center of the American plate,&#8221; Kennedy said. &#8220;America, it&#8217;s time to eat real food. Let’s get cooking.” 
The new series premiered Thursday on the HHS website and YouTube. Celebrity chef Andrew Gruel joined Kennedy for the first episode, where they prepared crispy wild Alaskan salmon cakes served with an apple, white bean and greens salad.
&#8220;I&#8217;m excited to be part of the premiere episode because I believe the message is much bigger than a cooking show,&#8221; Gruel <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/rfk-jr-takes-maha-kitchen-hhs-cooking-series-promoting-healthy-meals-under-5">told</a> Fox News Digital.
&#8220;My hope is that this series helps demystify cooking and shows people that preparing crave-worthy, healthy meals doesn&#8217;t require professional training or expensive ingredients,&#8221; he added.

Screenshot 2026-07-31 at 5.01.07 PM

Move Over, Food Network: RFK Jr. Has A Cooking Show

Department of Health and Human Services

Food

Health

MAHA

nutrition

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

TV Shows

Arizona State University, long known as one of America&#8217;s biggest party schools, is now offering a bachelor&#8217;s degree for aspiring influencers. 
The university&#8217;s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication recently unveiled a Bachelor of Arts in Content Creation, a program designed to prepare students to &#8220;become an influencer and strategic storyteller who thrives in the rapidly evolving creator economy.&#8221;
According to the university, the program is aimed at students who &#8220;dream of monetizing&#8221; their social media presence. Courses include How To Become An Influencer, On-Camera Presence, Podcasting, Social Media Foundations, The Digital Audience, and Interpersonal Influence.
ASU says the degree goes beyond creating social media posts.
Students will study multimedia production, audience analytics, personal branding, social media strategy, and integrated communications while participating in internships, brand partnerships, and content creation trips in Phoenix, Los Angeles, and abroad.
Jessica Pucci, senior associate dean at the Cronkite School, <a href="https://www.azfamily.com/2026/07/21/learn-how-be-an-influencer-with-asus-content-creation-major/">said</a> students will analyze performance metrics across multiple platforms, test different content strategies, and use data to grow their audiences.
Their senior capstone project requires students to spend an entire semester creating content on a platform such as TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube while demonstrating measurable audience growth. 
&#8220;They will have a platform of their choice with real content and real followers and a real audience behind them,&#8221; Pucci said. 
University officials say the program reflects the rapid growth of the creator economy, which Goldman Sachs <a href="https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/the-creator-economy-could-approach-half-a-trillion-dollars-by-2027">projects</a> could reach nearly $480 billion by 2027. 
Supporters say the coursework teaches practical skills that many successful creators eventually have to learn through trial and error.
But the announcement has also drawn plenty of skepticism <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/07/24/lifestyle/arizona-state-university-now-offers-a-content-creation-major/?utm_campaign=nypost&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter">online</a>, with critics questioning whether students need a four-year degree to learn skills many internet personalities developed on their own.
Arizona influencer Anna Elizabeth, who also works as a medical assistant, said she wishes the program had existed when she began building her online audience. 
&#8220;How do I get brands to notice me?&#8221; she said. &#8220;It&#8217;s a little bit difficult to understand that portion if you haven&#8217;t done it for a long time.&#8221;
Even some faculty members questioned whether the degree justifies its cost. ASU philosophy professor Owen Anderson asked on <a href="https://x.com/dr_owenanderson/status/2080107269468066231">X</a> whether the major would satisfy new federal accountability standards requiring degree programs to improve graduates&#8217; earning potential compared to workers without a college education.
Arizona State is not the first university to embrace the influencer economy. Syracuse University recently established a Center for the Creator Economy, while Graceland University and Arizona&#8217;s Grand Canyon University offer degree programs focused on digital content and social media.

COLLEGE FOOTBALL: OCT 14 Washington at Arizona State

Infamous Party School Launches Hilarious New Major

Arizona

Arizona State University

College

Education

higher education

Instagram

Podcast

podcasts

Social Media

TikTok

Universities

Google&#8217;s announcements on Tuesday at its I/O developer conference drew mixed reactions, including the update to its AI model Gemini Omni, which will allow users to remix and even insert themselves into YouTube videos.
Google CEO Sundar Pichai highlighted YouTube&#8217;s global reach during the presentation, noting that the platform now has more than three billion users worldwide, as <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/youtube-worldwide-number-users-use-ai-insert-into-videos-1236601256/">noted</a> by The Hollywood Reporter. The company said it plans to keep pushing deeper into AI-powered content creation tools as competition intensifies across the tech industry. 
YouTube Shorts will now include a “Remix” feature powered by Google&#8217;s Gemini Omni model. The tool allows users to tweak videos in various ways to make them their own. 
The feature closely resembles tools previously offered through OpenAI&#8217;s Sora platform, including “Cameos,” which allowed users to place AI-generated versions of themselves into videos before the app was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/disney-ditches-billion-dollar-partnership-over-unexpected-ai-collapse">shut down in April</a>. 
The company addressed expected backlash by noting that the AI-generated versions would have visible watermarks connected to the original video and said, “creators are always in control of their content and have the flexibility to opt out of visual remix in Shorts at any time.”
“Remix an eligible Short by adding your own prompts and images to create an entirely new vision, like changing the scene into a 90’s vibe or inserting yourself alongside your favorite creator, all while the context of the original video stays the same,” YouTube <a href="https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/youtube-news-google-io-2026/">said</a> in the press release. 
“Remixing with Omni delivers a fresh way for users to create and build on each other’s imagination. The model better understands user intent creating more consistent and meaningful storytelling while also handling complex video and audio adjustments behind the scenes. This means you can spend less time worrying about technical skills and more time focusing on your ideas.”
Another update will be a feature called “Ask YouTube” for users who ask questions on the platform. “People come to YouTube every day to ask questions,” Pichai said during the presentation. “There’s a lot of videos, it can be hard to know where to start.”
Remixing with Gemini Omni will be available for free through YouTube Shorts Remix and the YouTube Create app.

YouTube Is About To Blur The Line Between Real And Fake Even More

Artificial Intelligence

Google

Technology

“Looksmaxxing” influencer Braden Peters, best known by online followers as Clavicular, appears to have overdosed during a livestream on Tuesday.
The 20-year-old internet personality appeared on the Kick livestream alongside two other influencers while walking around a mall and sitting at a restaurant. Peters speaks to two women during that time and appears to be under the influence of some substance.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="i overdosed.." width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BQRQUtLERfM?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
He keeps repeating, &#8220;Holy sh*t dude, I&#8217;m trying my best, but I&#8217;m f*cking destroyed right now.”
Right before the stream cuts, an Australian influencer named Androgenic can be heard asking him, &#8220;When did you last take blue?&#8221; as Peters&#8217; head lolls forward. He also offers Peters an &#8220;addy&#8221; multiple times, which is slang commonly used to refer to the ADHD medication Adderall. 
After that, the livestream stops abruptly. 
Androgenic <a href="https://x.com/androgenic_/status/2044238951913767186?s=20">posted</a> about the incident on X late Tuesday night.
&#8220;I hadn’t seen him in this state before, and he went from speaking to being fairly unresponsive in mere seconds,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;Within a minute, we all realised the situation, turned the stream off, picked him up and rushed him to the hospital.”
Peters shared an <a href="https://x.com/clavicular0/status/2044362432823411176?s=46&amp;t=o-U3qwC25WnWaylJ0oeG7Q">update</a> on his status Wednesday morning, noting that the worst part of the experience is what happened to his face.
“Just got home, that was brutal,” he posted on X. “All of the substances are just a cope trying to feel neurotypical while being in public, but obviously that isn’t a real solution. The worst part of tonight was my face descending from the life support mask.”
In response to a comment asking why he doesn&#8217;t just embrace his neurodivergence, the live streamer replied, “If i wasnt a livestreamer id agree with you,” seemingly implying that he was going to continue abusing drugs despite the overdose.
The incident comes just days after Peters walked out of an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXKCoFz3WRs">interview</a> with “60 Minutes Australia” after being asked if he identified with the “incel” (involuntary celibate) community. 
“Do I identify as an incel?” Peters replied. “I mean, how could you ask me that question as a follow-up after you asked me about my relationships to women. I mean, that’s quite literally the worst sequence of questions I think I’ve ever heard.”
The interview said, “Let me rephrase then. Looksmaxxing was obviously a term created by the incel community. How do you feel about being linked to that group?”
“I’m not linked to that group in any way,” Peters replied. “Looksmaxxing is self-improvement, right? So it’s about potentially even ascending out of that category. So that would be kind of one of the goals is to disassociate from being an incel and overcome that. So that doesn’t make sense.”
The focus then shifted to Peters’ association with Andrew Tate in a line of questioning he called “political.” After some back and forth, the influencer walked off.
Peters has attracted a large following of his “Clavicular” persona. The 20-year-old makes content that revolves around his physical appearance, sometimes showcasing the extreme methods he uses to appear more attractive, which he began employing at 14 years old. 
In an interview with Michael Knowles in late 2025, Peters claimed that he used to “smash his face with a hammer” to help improve his bone structure. Since sharing his “looksmaxxing” lifestyle, he has built a following of hundreds of thousands on social media.

Clavicular

WATCH: Looksmaxxer Clavicular Carried Out Of Club After Overdosing Live On Stream

Entertainment

News

overdose

There is a not-so-secret war being waged for control of your kid&#8217;s mind.
Who owns your child&#8217;s mind? Social media companies? The government?
Or is it you?
A landmark lawsuit that just sent a gigantic shockwave through Silicon Valley. Meta (Facebook) and YouTube (Google) were found negligent in facilitating social media addiction.
Let’s break down the case that could upend Big Tech, reshape AI regulation, and force a national reckoning over parenting power and responsibility.
The legal case found both companies were negligent in facilitating social media addiction. According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/technology/social-media-trial-verdict.html">The New York Times</a>:
<blockquote>The bellwether case, which was brought by a now 20-year-old woman identified as K.G.M., had accused social media companies of creating products as addictive as cigarettes or digital casinos. Citing features like infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations, K.G.M. sued Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, and Google’s YouTube, claiming they led to anxiety and depression. &#8230; 
K.G.M., whose first name is Kaley, filed her lawsuit in 2023 against Meta, Snap, YouTube and TikTok. Kaley, who lives in Chico, Calif., said she had begun using social media at age 6 and claimed the sites caused personal injury, including body dysmorphia and thoughts of self harm. </blockquote>
Variety said that the verdict was rooted in an argument around cigarette addiction. Back in the 1990s, there were settlements with the big tobacco companies where it was found that the tobacco companies fraudulently marketed products they knew were addictive as non-addictive, and that drew millions of people into serious health risks like lung cancer.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2396-sub?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
That doesn&#8217;t seem like a crazy take. We were told originally that social media would be a gigantic benefit for all of us. It would open “new vistas.” We&#8217;d all experience “new worlds.” We&#8217;d have “so many friends.” (Yeah, they&#8217;d be Facebook friends, but they were still friends.) We&#8217;d never have to go outside again. We&#8217;d all live in the metaverse, etc.
All of that was untrue. All of these social media companies are clickbait machines. That is what they are designed to do, in Pavlovian style.
Stanford psychiatrist Anna Lembke, who wrote a book called “Dopamine Nation,” speaks about this. She writes:
<blockquote>We&#8217;re wired to connect. It&#8217;s kept us alive for millions of years in a world of scarcity and ever-present danger. Moving in tribes safeguards against predators optimizes scarce resources and facilitates pair bonding.
Our brains release dopamine when we make human connections, and that incentivizes us to do it again. Social connection has now become drugified by social media apps, making us vulnerable to compulsive overconsumption. These apps can cause the release of large amounts of dopamine into our brains’ reward pathway all at once, like heroin. meth or alcohol. They do that by amplifying the feel-good properties that attract humans to each other in the first place.</blockquote>
It&#8217;s not just the social connection. It&#8217;s also because when you scroll on X, it&#8217;s literally designed to provide a brief dopamine rush. That&#8217;s why there&#8217;s that little sound effect. It&#8217;s almost a literal Pavlovian response. A Pavlovian response was established when you rang a bell in front of a dog and fed it a piece of meat at the same time. Eventually, when you rang the bell, the dog would start to salivate even if the meat wasn&#8217;t there because the brain had now been trained: Bell means meat, so bell causes salivation.
Social media companies do that too. This is why when you scroll, there&#8217;s a little sound effect. You&#8217;re going to get a dopamine hit, even if nothing new appears, just because you hear that little sound effect. 
Social media companies are arguing that they&#8217;re not the ones who are actually causing the addiction to really serious stuff. They say, “Sure, our algorithms are designed to make you click, but it&#8217;s the videos themselves that are responsible for the harm, not the design of the product.” 
In other words, if you were watching lots of cooking videos on social media and it fed you an infinite loop of cooking videos and not skinny influencers, you&#8217;d be totally fine. You&#8217;re the one who decides whether you are clicking on skinny influencers or whether you&#8217;re clicking on cooking videos. And what&#8217;s more, it turns out, these social media companies aren&#8217;t the ones who are actually making the content. The social media companies say, &#8220;We&#8217;re a platform, like a phone line.&#8221;
Yes, they make money by featuring viral content, but the consumer picks which content to actually watch. The person posting the content is actually responsible for the content, unless it&#8217;s an AI or a bot these days.
Until now, social media companies have been avoiding legal culpability by citing Section 230. Section 230 says that if you&#8217;re a platform and your website has a comment section, you&#8217;re not responsible for what&#8217;s in the comments.
If you&#8217;re YouTube, you&#8217;re not responsible for the content of the videos that are on YouTube because you&#8217;re just providing the platform on which others can post.
Section 230 says that all of these platforms ought not be held liable for content produced by others.
But that&#8217;s not on point.
The actual argument here is that these social media sites are, by their very nature, addictive, and that almost no matter what the content is, the medium is damaging to kids.
This raises a broader question for parents. Are you responsible for your children and their social media use?
The answer here should be yes.
My kids aren&#8217;t on social media because they are banned from using social media. Kids who are addicted to TV also don&#8217;t have great lives, but we don&#8217;t actually hold TV companies responsible for that fact. Nobody&#8217;s suing Apple because your kid is watching Apple TV all day.
That&#8217;s a point made yesterday by Meta&#8217;s president, Dina Powell McCormick, who said, “You know, as a mom, this is really important to me and very personal. I see firsthand just how hard the company is trying to ensure that there&#8217;s not harmful content, to ensure that we are empowering parents to the best of our ability. And it&#8217;s something that I watch being focused on every single day. We respectfully disagree with that decision, and we&#8217;re appealing.”
She&#8217;s not totally wrong here. The fact is that as a parent of four kids, going on five, I&#8217;m all over what my kids are consuming. I decide what movies they watch. I decide what TV shows they watch. They&#8217;re not allowed on social media. They do not have interactive capability on social media, anything like that.
This issue is kind of a sticky wicket, as social media companies are responsible for part of the problem because of the dopamine response. And yes, parents are also responsible for the problem.
Here&#8217;s the actual solution: not gigantic lawsuits. The answer is governmental legislation banning social media for kids under 18. Period.
That is what we should be doing. It&#8217;s what a lot of countries are doing right now — and they are correct to do so.
Users should have to register as over 18. Companies that don&#8217;t do it should be held legally accountable.
If we&#8217;re going to actually carry this analogy all the way through, if we&#8217;re going to treat social media like tobacco or alcohol, then the answer historically wasn&#8217;t to sue tobacco companies for kids smoking, it was to ban kids from smoking. The same is true for alcohol.
The reason I&#8217;m a little bit averse to lawsuits like these is because I think it will be extended to adults. I think what&#8217;s going to happen is that this will be used as a broader argument, not just against social media, where I’m relatively indifferent, but to actual useful technologies like AI, because this is a big societal question: Should we blame technology for our own failures as adults?
Kids are a different story. The reason that this particular lawsuit is emotionally appealing is because it&#8217;s about a kid who got addicted. And kids do get addicted. And honestly, I blame the parents as the primary source.
I don&#8217;t let my kids get addicted to things. It&#8217;s my job to prevent that. I don&#8217;t give my kids candy bars even though they want candy bars every single day, all the time. And if I decide to feed that to them, and they get Type 2 diabetes. I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s on the candy company. I think it&#8217;s on me.
My biggest problem here is that we start blaming technologies for our failures as adults.
We have to look to ourselves to solve some of these problems.

Meta And Youtube Found Liable In Social Media Addiction Lawsuit

Did Social Media Destroy The Kids?

Big Tech

Facebook

Lawsuit

Opinion

social media addiction

Teenagers

A Los Angeles County jury found that Meta and YouTube have contributed to growing mental health problems stemming from social media use.
The social media giants must now pay $3 million in damages over personal injury caused by its platforms. The verdict is expected to influence similar suits throughout the country filed against social media companies.
The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bellwether-social-media-addiction-trial-puts-instagram-youtube-and-tiktok-in-the-crosshairs">case</a> in the California Superior Court centered on a 19-year-old woman, referred to as K.G.M., who argued that social media platforms have knowingly designed their platforms to get children and young users addicted. The California jury found Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, 70% responsible for the harm to K.G.M. and YouTube 30% responsible, NBC News <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/verdict-reached-landmark-social-media-addiction-trial-rcna263421">reported</a>.
The verdict comes after a New Mexico jury handed Meta a $375m bill in civil penalties after it found the company misled consumers about the safety of its platforms. Like the landmark case in Los Angeles, the New Mexico verdict is historic on its own as the first jury trial to find Meta liable for acts committed on its platform. Like the Los Angeles Court Verdict, Meta has said it will appeal the ruling.
“We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal. We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content,” said a Meta spokesperson. “We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online.”
In a statement to The Daily Wire in January, YouTube said the allegations it faces in social media addiction suits “are simply not true.”
“Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work,” said YouTube spokesman José Castañeda. “In collaboration with youth, mental health and parenting experts, we built services and policies to provide young people with age-appropriate experiences, and parents with robust controls. The allegations in these complaints are simply not true.”
K.G.M.&#8217;s social media addiction, which started when she was a minor, resulted in crippling depression, body dysmorphia, and suicidal thoughts, according to the lawsuit. The suit was also filed against Snapchat and TikTok, but those platforms settled with K.G.M. before the trial started. K.G.M.’s case is just the first of many that are expected to trial this year, targeting Snapchat, Meta, TikTok, and YouTube, which is owned by Google.
Social media platforms, including Meta and YouTube, have touted online safety features in recent years, such as Instagram&#8217;s &#8220;Teen Accounts&#8221; and YouTube &#8220;Kids,&#8221; which are meant to create safer and more controlled experiences for children. Yet even with these additional features, social media use for children remains a hotly debated issue.

Social Media Platforms –  Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Pinterest, X, LinkedIn, Reddit, TikTok, Threads

Verdict Reached In Landmark Social Media Addiction Trial

Academy Award-nominated American director and filmmaker Darren Aronofsky is being questioned for his new AI-generated series, “On This Day&#8230; 1776.”
The 56-year-old filmmaker, best known for dark dramas including “Requiem for a Dream” (2000), “Black Swan” (2010), and “The Whale” (2022), is producing the series with his AI-based company Primordial Soup. “On This Day” will use Google DeepMind to reconstruct scenes from the American Revolution and post them to Time Studio’s YouTube channel, per <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/darren-aronofsky-revolutionary-war-ai-series-1236488180/">The Hollywood Reporter</a>.
The series has a stated goal of “reframing the Revolution not as a foregone conclusion but as a fragile experiment shaped by those who fought for it,” the companies said in a statement. Episodes will be released to coincide with the 250th anniversary dates as they occurred throughout this year.
Two episodes, one featuring George Washington boosting morale in Massachusetts and another with Benjamin Franklin encouraging Thomas Paine to champion common sense, were released yesterday.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="On This Day… 1776 | Official Trailer" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/E4cLKIxt8W8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Aronofsky has been vocal about using AI as a tool, and not as a replacement for filmmaking. He insists that the creations are “soup not slop,” and are worthy of watching. Many fans, however, are less than thrilled about it. 
“Wow this looks like a hunk of worthless dog sh*t,” Daily Wire podcast host Matt Walsh <a href="https://x.com/mattwalshblog/status/2017086047868404138?s=43">wrote</a> on X in response to the trailer. 
“A director should completely lose their career for this. [H]is wikipedia should say former filmmaker from now on no matter what else he does,” another commenter <a href="https://x.com/ecto_fun/status/2016950114439323746?s=43">agreed</a>. 
“My favorite part of this garbage is how you can see which actors the different characters lifts their looks from (due to unlawful usage of their likeness in the training data) and how these characters slowly morph into different actors during scenes,” <a href="https://x.com/Carnivol/status/2017163838601224671">said</a> a third X user.
“This look [sic] awful,” another popular comment <a href="https://x.com/BikeMan/status/2016981447446290642">said</a>. “It has that weird uncanny valley AI sheen on it as usual. AI also always has boring, predictable camera movements. Slow rotations and pans every time. I see the standard AI dead eyed line deliveries are present as well.&#8221;

Darren Aronofsky

‘Black Swan’ Director Mocked For AI-Generated Series About The American Revolution

'Black Swan' Director Mocked For AI-Generated Series About Revolutionary Period

American Revolution

History

Television

The NFL is being dragged for appointing a “Chief Kindness Officer” ahead of Super Bowl LX next weekend.
The Hollywood Reporter broke the news that the league is partnering with more than 160 “creators” to promote the Super Bowl in the week leading up to the big game. This includes naming YouTuber Dhar Mann as “Chief Kindness Officer,” a nod to his feel-good content, and having him produce football-themed videos on kindness.
The outlet noted that Mann will release the content on both his channel and the NFL’s official channel. This “series of digital, social, and on-the-ground activations” is reportedly “designed to activate kindness and sportsmanship across fans and players throughout Super Bowl events.”
For example, the “Be Kind To Your Rival” social campaign encourages fans to say nice things about opposing teams and their fans. Mann will donate $1 to St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, up to $100,000, for every qualifying post that includes the #KindnessWinsBig hashtag.
“Instead of a halftime show, we’re gonna do a hug time show,” Mann said in a <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@dhar.mann/video/7600906194936450335">TikTok video</a> promoting the partnership with the NFL. At another point, he tells the refs, “How about instead of throwing these [penalty] flags, we just present them nicely.” The video also shows Mann encouraging football players to find nice things to say about their opponents.
The campaign has sparked widespread mockery on social media, with fans saying the move underscores how out of touch the NFL is with its audience.  
“The NFL has no idea of who their fan base is,” one X reply <a href="https://x.com/plzbepatient/status/2017023884378407422?s=43">said</a>. 
“Not sure any business hates their fans more than the @NFL and @nflcommish Roger Goodell,” conservative activist Robby Starbuck <a href="https://x.com/robbystarbuck/status/2017052441229889605">agreed</a>. “People are watching for champions and gladiators, not to have a chief kindness officer. Ridiculous.”
“They have ignored the real fans in search of mythical fans that do not exist and could not care less about football in general; however, they will cry victim at the first hint that they aren&#8217;t being catered to,” another comment said.
Critics have also pointed to Mann’s past legal troubles. In 2011, he pleaded no contest to five felony counts of defrauding the city of Oakland after being accused of stealing $44,000 in redevelopment grant funds, per <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/19/style/dhar-mann-youtube.html">The New York Times</a>. He was fined $37,500 and served no time.
Mann told the outlet in 2021 that the conviction was later expunged.

Dhar Mann

NFL Slammed For Appointing ‘Chief Kindness Officer’ Ahead Of Super Bowl

NFL Absolutely Trashed For Appointing 'Chief Kindness Officer' Ahead Of Super Bowl

Football

Roger Goodell

Superbowl

Three of the world&#8217;s largest social media platforms are heading to court on Tuesday as they defend themselves in a bellwether social media addiction case.
The California Superior Court in Los Angeles County is set to hear the case, which alleges that Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube have contributed to the growing problem of social media addiction and the mental health issues that stem from it. TikTok and Snapchat were also sued in the case, but settled with the plaintiff before the trial began. 
Jury selection for the trial begins on Tuesday, with opening arguments scheduled for next week. The case is part of a coordinated effort across the country that includes hundreds of similar cases where litigants accuse social media giants of fueling addiction.
In the case before the California Superior Court, a 19-year-old woman, referred to as K.G.M., argues that social media platforms have knowingly designed their platforms to get children and young users addicted. Studies have shown that social media features such as autoplay and infinite scroll induce a dopamine hit, which can lead to users spending hours on platforms each day.
K.G.M.&#8217;s social media addiction <a href="https://www.carriermanagement.com/news/2025/10/21/280613.htm">resulted</a> in crippling depression, body dysmorphia, and suicidal thoughts, according to the lawsuit. K.G.M.&#8217;s case is just the first of many that are expected to trial this year, targeting Snapchat, Meta, TikTok, and YouTube, which is owned by Google. Snapchat settled with K.G.M., but it remains a defendant in numerous other social media cases that are set to go before state and federal courts.
YouTube told The Daily Wire that the allegations it faces in the cases “are simply not true.”
“Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work,” said YouTube spokesman José Castañeda. “In collaboration with youth, mental health and parenting experts, we built services and policies to provide young people with age-appropriate experiences, and parents with robust controls. The allegations in these complaints are simply not true.”
The Daily Wire also reached out to Snapchat, TikTok, and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram. Snapchat told The Daily Wire that it was &#8220;pleased&#8221; to have settled the K.G.M. case in &#8220;an amicable manner.&#8221;
The K.G.M trial will likely put Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg on the witness stand, where he will have to answer questions in front of a jury. Meta’s lawyers <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/meta-tiktok-youtube-stand-trial-youth-addiction-claims-2026-01-26/">told</a> Reuters that the social media giant will argue before the court that its platform did not lead to K.G.M’s mental health issues. YouTube said it will argue that its platform is different from those of the other defendants and shouldn&#8217;t be considered in the same case as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok.
The California Superior Court trial could shape public opinion on social media platforms moving forward as the companies face more trials, including one in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which is set to begin on June 12. The lawsuit before the federal court was filed by school districts, which argue that social media addiction fueled by social media companies “not only harms individual children and their loved ones but also causes substantial and financially burdensome interference with school district, county, and municipal operations.”
In recent years, Meta has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ig-introduces-teen-accounts-with-built-in-privacy-settings-to-better-support-parents">rolled out</a> online safety features for children using Instagram. The platform&#8217;s &#8220;Teen Accounts&#8221; keep children&#8217;s accounts private, meaning other Instagram users cannot see posts from or contact a Teen Account unless the teenager accepts their follow requests. Instagram also censors content on Teen Accounts, so that children are not shown content that features fighting or cosmetic procedures.
TikTok, meanwhile, <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/support/faq_detail?id=7543604789335071238&amp;category=web_account">created</a> &#8220;a separate TikTok experience specifically designed&#8221; for kids under 13 years old. The &#8220;TikTok Under 13 Experience&#8221; curates content that is more appropriate for young children, makes all accounts private, and limits screen time to one hour. YouTube also has a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/intl/ALL_us/kids/safer-experience/">kids version</a> of the platform that is &#8220;designed to be a safer and simpler place for kids to explore their interests through online video.&#8221; YouTube requires videos uploaded on YouTube Kids to be &#8220;family-friendly.&#8221;
The effects of social media on children has become a hot topic in recent years, and the issue gained more attention after the book, &#8220;The Anxious Generation,&#8221; by Jonathan Haidt was published in 2024. In the book, Haidt, a social psychologist, argues that anxiety and depression skyrocketed in the past 15 years, coinciding with what he calls the &#8220;great rewiring of childhood,&#8221; which is the flip from a play-based childhood to a phone-based childhood.
The social media addiction case in California comes as some countries move to ban social media for children. Last month, Australia became the first nation in the world to ban social media for kids under 16. Malaysia has introduced a similar social media ban, and Utah passed a law in 2024 requiring social media platforms to verify a users&#8217; age and obtain parental consent, but parts of the law were temporarily blocked by a federal judge.
This article was updated after TikTok settled with K.G.M. shortly before the trial started.

Social media

Bellwether Social Media Addiction Trial Puts Instagram, Facebook, And YouTube In The Crosshairs

Courts

Snapchat

U.S.

By now, Daily Wire readers are probably familiar with children&#8217;s entertainer Ms. Rachel&#8217;s history of anti-Israel activism. Things reached a fever pitch this week when Ms. Rachel &#8220;accidentally&#8221; liked an Instagram comment calling to &#8220;free America from the Jews.&#8221; She claims the like was accidental, and insists that she remains a neutral child advocate.
In this piece, Vanessa Santos — a mother of two and D.C. public relations guru — explains why she doesn&#8217;t let her kids watch Ms. Rachel. As Vanessa explains, it&#8217;s not about protesting someone with objectionable views, but taking care about who you let your children grow to trust. If you&#8217;re a parent, you&#8217;d do well to consider her compelling case. — Tim Rice
***
Like many parents of young children, I spend a lot of time thinking about what enters our home.
I’m careful about what my kids eat, who they learn from, and especially what they watch. Children absorb authority long before they understand ideas, which makes early media choices far more consequential than we like to admit.
That is why my kids don’t watch Ms. Rachel.
The popular children’s entertainer, whose real name is Rachel Griffin Accurso, burst on the scene with her “Songs For Littles” videos, which help children develop speech with songs and puppets. It’s like Sesame Street for the YouTube age, and it became a sensation during the coronavirus pandemic as parents scrambled to support isolated children falling behind.
But in recent years, Ms. Rachel has become known for something else entirely: her criticism of Israel and defense of Hamas in Gaza.
Accurso claims that she’s a neutral humanitarian who uses her platform to advocate for children everywhere. But her actions tell a different story.
This week, the “Free Palestine” activist came under fire for liking an Instagram comment that said “Free America from the Jews.”
Accurso said she liked the comment by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ms-rachel-says-she-liked-free-america-from-the-jews-comment-by-accident?author=Brecca+Stoll&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=Ms.+Rachel+Says+She+Liked+%E2%80%98Free+America+From+The+Jews%E2%80%99+Comment+By+Accident" target="_blank" rel="noopener">accident</a>, mistakenly tapping the like button while trying to delete the comment. Her apology, which included a disavowal of antisemitism, satisfied some of her fans.
I’m not convinced. Whether or not she “accidentally” liked the comment, it’s hardly the first time that she’s cozied up to antisemitic interests.
In an August interview with Peter Beinart, she repeated disputed casualty claims and framed Israel as uniquely responsible for the suffering of children in Gaza, while omitting Hamas’s role in initiating and sustaining the war.
This was not an impulsive post. It was a deliberate media appearance in which a children’s entertainer used her credibility with parents to promote one-sided war messaging.
She campaigned for and has frequently appeared with Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who declined to renew New York City executive orders addressing antisemitism and boycotts of Israel, raising concerns among Jewish organizations.
These appearances do not exist in isolation. Ms. Rachel <a href="https://stopantisemitism.org/as-week/ms-rachel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">frequently uses her platform</a> to criticize Israel and repeat false claims about the war in Gaza.
Antisemitism today rarely announces itself outright. It moves through selective outrage, euphemisms, and moral posturing that excuse violence against Jews. When a children’s entertainer begins to deal in this kind of rhetoric, it’s up to parents to take notice.
This is not about canceling a YouTuber. It is about boundaries. There are countless ways to teach language development without bringing activism into the playroom. Parents can choose content creators who are focused on children, not politically charged activism.
Children don’t need to understand antisemitism for it to harm them. They form trust in authority figures before they’re capable of evaluating what those figures stand for.
We’ve all seen how much children love Ms. Rachel. The 43-year-old isn’t going anywhere, and her brand is only growing. The children who love her videos now will grow with her and continue looking to her as a trusted source, much as previous generations looked to Mr. Rogers.
One day, these children will hear her talk about Israel. And that’s where the problem starts.
That’s why my children don’t watch Ms. Rachel. I don’t trust her to help shape their moral understanding. I won’t invite someone with these abhorrent views into my home.
Pressing play is not a neutral act. It is an invitation into our homes and into our children’s developing sense of authority, and that access carries responsibility.
Influencers are not entitled to parental trust. They earn or lose our trust by what they say and do.
Ms. Rachel has certainly lost mine.
***
Vanessa Santos is the founder and president of Renegade DC, a Washington, D.C.-based communications firm.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

TODAY – Season 73

Why I Don’t Let My Kids Watch Ms. Rachel

antisemitism

Israel

Zohran Mamdani

Two years ago, The Daily Wire launched a kids&#8217; programming platform called Bentkey exactly because of people like Ms. Rachel, who has turned her hypnotic videos for preschoolers into a vehicle for leftist propaganda. 
Bentkey has a different idea: entertainment that is actually for kids and doesn&#8217;t feature any soft-peddling of adult themes. You know, cute characters, fun adventures, and stories you don&#8217;t need to worry will have your kids asking you what a &#8220;transgender&#8221; is. It&#8217;s what my kids watch, and you can <a href="https://get.bentkey.com/">check it out here</a>. 
I haven&#8217;t seen anyone lay out the need for alternatives like Bentkey better than the Daily Wire&#8217;s own Matt Walsh, who laid into Ms. Rachel on his show this week. Here&#8217;s what he had to say. —Brent Scher 
***
Ms. Rachel is a YouTuber who makes videos for preschoolers. We’ve covered her before on my podcast. She’s known for teaching children about gay pride, LGBT issues, and pronouns. That alone is reason enough not to put her content on for your kids. You should not allow your children to watch her show for those reasons.
Now she’s out on a propaganda tour with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Here they are visiting a preschool:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
This morning, Ms. Rachel and I visited District 2 Pre-K Center, where we sang and read with the wonderful students and educators. We also discussed universal childcare &#8211; and how we&#8217;re making it happen for NYC! <a href="https://t.co/974M24kt64">pic.twitter.com/974M24kt64</a>
— Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@NYCMayor) <a href="https://twitter.com/NYCMayor/status/2009726131386146938?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @NYCMayor/X.com
“This morning, Ms. Rachel and I visited District 2 Pre-K Center, where we sang and read with the wonderful students and educators. We also discussed universal childcare—and how we’re making it happen for NYC!”
Yes, I’m sure the four-year-olds were riveted by that conversation.
You sat down with four-year-olds to talk about universal child care — which, by the way, is terrible for four-year-olds. It’s the city’s way of getting more kids into government-run child care and away from their parents.
That’s really the message here: “Good news, kids. You’re going to spend even less time with your parents and even more time with government workers. And government workers are the best.”
So here’s the debate over Ms. Rachel: Is she a political propagandist? She’s enormously popular with kids and racks up billions of views. Should you be exposing your children to someone like that, given her political messaging?
The answer is clearly no. You should not expose your kids to a political propagandist.
But set the politics aside for a moment. I want to make a more basic point about Ms. Rachel and people like her. I find most children’s YouTube creators to be creepy. As a parent, you need a radar for that. If your instinct isn’t asking, “Who is this person?” then you’re not paying attention.
Even before you evaluate the content or any political messaging, the vibe matters. And while vibe-based arguments don’t work in politics, they absolutely do in parenting. If something feels weird — if you don’t like the vibe—then that person doesn’t belong around your kids. That alone is reason enough to turn it off.
These adults making content for three- and four-year-olds have figured out that it’s an extremely profitable business. So they just keep churning it out.
They’re slop merchants for toddlers. And they churn out slop for every age bracket. It boggles my mind that there are parents who say, “Yep, here’s what my four-year-old needs—some slop. Bring on the slop. Sit down, Junior. It’s slop time. Go ahead and spend three hours watching this mind-numbing, weird show.”
I don’t get it.
The other thing I can’t stand is when children’s content creators act and dress like children themselves. That’s where the weirdness really kicks in. You have adults in their 40s and 50s speaking and acting like kids. Ms. Rachel appears in overalls, sneakers, and a headband — she’s in her 40s. Why is she dressed like that? She speaks and acts like a kindergartener. And that’s what almost all of these children’s YouTuber types do.
Compare that to Mr. Rogers. He made content for children, but he didn’t present himself as a child. He was a grandfatherly figure. That vibe passes the parent check. It’s wholesome, constructive, and edifying. Children can learn from that.
But when you put on overalls and start speaking in an absurdly over-the-top, childish, patronizing way, kids aren’t learning anything.
I went to Ms. Rachel’s page and pulled up one random video at the top. Nothing political. Nothing overtly objectionable. All I can say is that I would rather be stabbed to death than watch five minutes of her show. I would rather jump out of a hundred-story window than sit through it.
If the next regime comes in and they start arresting people like me, and they give me a choice between solitary confinement with Ms. Rachel playing on a loop or being thrown off a building, I’d say, “Please, the building.”
Don’t sit your kids in front of this slop. If your child is watching content that you can’t tolerate being in the same room with, that’s a good indication they shouldn’t be watching it — not because it’s political, but because it’s vapid, irritating, stupid, and bad for their minds and souls.
There are better alternatives than Ms. Rachel — like reading a book to your child.

Ms. Rachel Isn’t The Innocent YouTuber You Think She Is

Bentkey

kids

Matt Walsh

Menu