Venom guilty gear enjoyer

I only accept payments on cash app

My cash app is $Isaactheowl

Okay, I remember when I was apart of a fandom I would often see posts from a person in that fandom I didn't like so, I decided to try and figure out why. Turns out if you block someone it just hides their account and their posts, however, if anyone you don't have blocked reblogs from them then or they join a reblog post chain then, boom! You have a chance of seeing the post.

Sucks tumblr blocking is broken in this way but here are some tips that might help avoid seeing posts from people you blocked:

don't use the "for you" tap and stick to the following tab, if you blocked a tumblr that's popular in the niche the site deems you to be apart of, the for you tab will likely be trying to force you to see reblogs from them or featuring them

go into the settings under your accounts and check your Preferences settings (in the Dashboard tap) and make sure "Best Stuff First" is disabled (this will make your following feed show stuff based off when people post them and not on what tumblr thinks you want to see), might also be good to disable "Include posts liked by the blogs you follow", "Include "Based On Your Likes!"", & "Include followed tag posts"

Look at who is the source of the posts from the blocked person, if it's commonly one or two accounts you follow might be wise to unfollow them.

and finally an important PSA, your blocked list is tied to your blog, not whole account, this means if you block someone they're added to you main blog's block list but not the block list of your side account/s. to block on side accounts you need to go into the side accounts settings and paste the username into it's block list. idk why tumblr did this considering side accounts can't send asks or join communities so you would think block lists would also be connected but NOPE!

Hopefully all these tips help you deal with tumblrs odd and sometimes really annoying blocking!

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/social-media-ban-children-8thbkf239

Alright...so on one hand, idk WHY the US government is acting like they don't have their own shit going on...

But on the OTHER HAND...GIRL IT'S THE WHITE HOUSE THIS SHIT'S GETTING SERIOUS

⭐️🇺🇸That is pretty wild! That definitely was not on my bingo card!🇬🇧⭐️

The ironic thing is that Trump/The White House is doing nothing here for the states on these age verfication issues or speaking out against the laws that have already passed here in certain states.

There was no public service announcement or anything that I have seen from him/The White House on these issues!

NOT A PEEP!

He says "America First" (Again a lie from the start). Yet he will sit there and involved himself in other countries business instead of focusing on the people he is actively harming in the US with his decisions. It's embarrassing. 🙄😒

I'm surprised he/The White House said anything about it since ALL of US news as of late has been about him and zionist Israel bombing Iran. Remember guys this is a war to distract against the Epstein files, ICE, and other horrible things he/The White House are doing!

🇺🇸⭐️PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN ILLINOIS HERE IS WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT HB 5511! ⭐️🇺🇸

What is HB 5511?

It's an age verfication bill that has other negative side effects! It also violates constitutional laws. Here is a NetChoice article about it.

https://netchoice.org/netchoice-testimony-in-opposition-to-illinois-hb-5511-the-childrens-social-media-safety-act/

Age Bracket Verification: By January 1, 2028, it requires manufacturers of internet enabled devices and operating systems to prompt users to state the birth date or age bracket (under 13, 13-15, 16-17, 18+) of the device's primary user. (I'm guessing through some sort of age verfication process. ID's, selfies, etc. THAT IS BAD!)

Algorithmic Limits: It requires applications to alter how content is presented to minors, prohibiting "addictive" algorithmic feeds in favor of features like chronological only feeds for users under 18.

Privacy Controls: It mandates default privacy protections for minors, such as hiding location data and profile information and limits nighttime notifications.

What can you do about it 🫵⭐️🦅

1 — Send a physical letter (10 minutes) Physical letters to district offices are counted and taken seriously in a way emails are not. Find your rep at ilga.gov/members/FindMyLegislator. Download and edit the letter template here: [LINK]. Print it, sign it, mail it to their district office.

2 — Call their office (2 minutes) Let them know you sent a letter and strongly oppose these bills. Staff log every call.

3 — Submit a Witness Slip Illinois's formal system for going on record against a bill in committee. The slip window only opens once a committee hearing is officially scheduled — watch the bill status at ilga.gov and act fast when it posts, because the window can close within a day. Full written guide: aclu-il.org/illinois-witness-slip-faq — step by step video walkthrough: youtube.com/watch?v=Y4wHZWdWqQY — Find the bill at ilga.gov, click Witness Slips, select Opponent.

Here is a petition against it, too!

https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/oppose-illinois-hb5511-app-store-operating-system-age-verification-legislation

THE SENATE IS ON IT'S THIRD READING NO UPDATES YET! THAT IS A FEW STEPS AWAY FROM BECOMING LAW! Be sure to find out your rep and senator opinion and make yours known to them!

These bills are moving fast! The window is weeks, not months! Don't let this pass without a fight! ⭐️🇺🇸⚔️✊️

@youtube-privacy-union @humanconditionpoetry

The UK’s online safety consultation has ended, with over 80% of parents being in support of a social media ban

But, that’s actually around 8,900 people. Which is exactly “overwhelming”

Right now, there is a petition to not ban social media, with over 65,000 signatures

With the anti digital ID one being around 3 million

the article I will be using

“During the consultation period, the Prime Minister moved beyond neutral framing and into clear policy signalling. On BBC radio on April 13th he said: “We’re consulting on whether there should be a ban for under-16s.” In the same intervention he added: “The addictive scrolling mechanisms are really problematic… they need to go.”

A few days later, he was reported as telling tech executives that social media “can’t go on like this” and demanding “real-world changes” while the consultation remained open. Whatever one makes of the policy intent, this is not the language of open-ended deliberation, but a direction already set.”

“Across the three surveys, the exercise does not simply ask what people think, it increasingly defines the terms on which thinking is permitted.

The result is a questionnaire that risks producing not a neutral picture of public opinion but a carefully channelled set of responses shaped by framing, omission and the selective elevation of certain risks over others.”

The survey questions are often made out to seem open, but they are putting you in a place of bias

They often ask for what kind of government intervention, instead of asking if it’s needed or not

“In some cases, the narrowing is not only about what is asked, but what is not imagined as a valid response category.

When respondents are asked what children might be doing instead of spending time on social media, the options are overwhelmingly positive – sleep, exercise, hobbies, time with friends, family interaction. What is absent is any acknowledgement of less orderly but very real adolescent states: boredom, low mood, social withdrawal, risk-taking, or in more serious cases self-harm or criminal behaviour.

The effect is not simply to measure alternatives, but to curate them.”

features

Features are often shown through with their worst cases

“Consider the following item: “Ability to send nude images or videos.”

On its face, this appears to be a question about messaging functionality.

In practice, it is something more specific: a general communication feature is immediately defined through a highly-charged edge case.”

“By embedding a vivid misuse scenario directly into the label of a general feature, the survey collapses two distinct concepts:

a platform capability (sending images or video), and a particular form of misuse (sharing sexual imagery)”

Asymmetry of harm and benefit

A pre-loaded policy direction

Perhaps the most important feature of the consultation is its underlying ‘funnel’ structure.

Respondents are repeatedly guided towards a narrow set of policy instruments:

minimum age restrictions (often 16-plus) feature-level bans time restrictions and curfews enforcement and age verification systems platform compliance obligations One question even asks:

“Which platforms should be exempt from the new rules?”

This is basically just jumping the gun and not even asking if they should be banned, but how. Their not asking for support, but rather telling you that it will happen

Who decides what counts as “high quality content”?

“philosophical concern: who decides what counts as “good” or “harmful” information online?

The consultation repeatedly gestures towards harms such as:

misinformation harmful content inappropriate material unsafe interaction Yet these categories are not neutral descriptors. They depend on contested judgements about truth, value and appropriateness.”

“By focusing heavily on restriction-based responses, the consultation reflects the same framing: what is labelled ‘safety’ is treated primarily as something delivered through constraint, rather than through risk awareness, user autonomy or digital literacy.”

what it doesn’t ask

It doesn’t ask what the risks are for giving away your ID or personal information

Nor does it ask about privacy or how it’ll effect others

The consultation is basically not asking for permission, but telling you that it will happen

An example from the consultation from a user

in loving memory of my favorite shirt

Arguing about weather oxyclean or turmeric is a better pairing for white shirt..

Pointing out that UV light gets rid of the stain...

Or suggesting the shirt gets dyed fully orange with more turmeric.

shirt gets dyed fully orange

with more turmeric.

By Andy Corbley -Jan 27, 2026

A study run by Michigan State University in the state’s upper peninsula has discovered that encouraging American kestrels to nest in cherry orchards also reduces the presence of food-borne illnesses that can be passed via the fruit to consumers.

By keeping rodents—but particularly small, fruit-eating birds out of the orchards, kestrels were found to be an effective means of pest control.

“Kestrels are not very expensive to bring into orchards, but they work pretty well,” said Olivia Smith, lead study author and assistant professor of horticulture at Michigan State University. “And people just like kestrels a lot, so I think it’s an attractive strategy.”

The hypothesis of Smith and her colleagues was that by keeping fruit-eating birds away, fewer avian pathogens would reach the shelves of the grocery store. This proved largely correct, as kestrel-guarded orchards showed an 81% decrease in instances of crop damage, including missing fruit and fruit with bite marks, and a 66% decrease in bird droppings on the fruit trees.

“I’ve noticed a difference having the kestrels around, hovering over the spring crops,” Brad Thatcher, a farmer based in Washington state who has housed kestrels in the fruit and vegetable areas on April Joy Farm for over 13 years, told Inside Climate News. “There’s very little fecal damage from small songbirds at that time of year versus the fall.”

There are no shortage of problems for cherry and fruit farmers these days, from wild weather swings to labor shortages. Perching birds are just one more issue to deal with, and they’re quite the issue, causing some $85 million in losses every year among major growing states like Michigan and California.

Growers attempt to prevent the fruit loss in a variety of ways, including chemical repellents, lethal shooting, trapping, hanging nets over their trees, visual and auditory scare tactics, and even deforesting the area surrounding the orchard.

Not only were the kestrels found to be more effective at keeping the birds away, but the detectable levels of Campylobacter, the most common foodborne pathogen spread by bird feces, were lower on branches in orchards with kestrel nest boxes (0.97% compared to around 10%).