Sponsor my demons! Feed me the cash!

matcha originated in China about 1200 years ago, açaí has been consumed by Indigenous communities in the Amazon for centuries, and Dubai chocolate was invented by combining chocolate with knafeh, an 1100 year old SWANA snack.

western (usually white but seemingly not in this case) people love to call nonwhite foods suddenly becoming popular in western mainstream culture "industry plants" as if they haven't always existed.

THEN AS THEY SAID AT THE ALAMO,..

COME AND TAKE IT!

THE K.I.D.S ACT AKA THE SURVEILLANCE STATE ACT IS BEING RAILROADED STRAIGHT THROUGH THE TIME FOR TALK IS OVER NOW IS THE TIME FOR ACTION TIME TO BRIG THIS TO A STOP WE CANNOT WILL NOT ALLOW THIS TIME FOR THEM TO HEAR THE WORDS GO FROM HELL NO TO IF YOU DO THIS YOU WILL NOT SEE ANYTHING FROM IT WILL WILL NOT LET THIS STAND IF IT DOES MORE INFORMATION:

AND THIS IS MY MESSAGE TO THOSE WHO PLAN TO VOTE YES!

“Senate Commerce is eyeing July 29 for the big kids and AI markup.

The date isn’t finalized but the session is likely to include KOSA, Cruz priorities like his chatbots bill and potentially even measures on “catastrophic risk.”

This is not talking about the kids act, which is a separate thing from this, but either way, calling your representatives to tell them to stop the kids act and Kosa are very important

call em

TLDR;

California residents William Flemming and Devin Rose are attempting to represent all nationwide YouTube premium users in a lawsuit

The lawsuit says that sponsored parts of YouTube videos are ads and therefore, YouTube premium “no ads” promise is false advertising

full thing

“The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California on July 14, was brought by California residents William Flemming and Devin Rose, who are seeking to represent a nationwide class of YouTube Premium subscribers.

According to the lawsuit, YouTube repeatedly markets Premium as offering “ad-free” viewing with “no interruptions,” encouraging consumers to pay a monthly subscription fee in exchange for a viewing experience free of advertising.”

what’s being argued

“The plaintiffs argue YouTube Premium does not deliver the experience it promises because subscribers continue to encounter paid sponsorships inserted into videos by creators.

The complaint cites several examples, including a Theo Von podcast that pauses an interview with actor Kevin James for a Pepsi promotion,

a Kallmekris true crime video interrupted by a Surfshark VPN sponsorship, and a Markiplier gameplay video that transitions into a NordVPN advertisement just seconds after it begins.

Another example highlighted in the lawsuit involves The Diary Of A CEO, where sponsored portions of episodes are explicitly labeled “Ads” by the creator.”

The complaint says that these act the same way as ads and therefore, invalidates the YouTube premium promise of no ads

“The lawsuit also points to YouTube’s comparison between Premium and Premium Lite.

While Premium Lite is advertised as having “Most videos are ad-free,”

the complaint says Premium is promoted as having “No ads” across all YouTube videos,

creating a clear distinction that consumers rely on when choosing between the two subscription tiers”

YouTube help center

“YouTube’s Help Center states that Premium subscribers may still encounter creator “branding or promotions,” including promotional links, merchandise, memberships and similar content.”

The complaint says that information is part of a different thing and not part of the premium terms of service

“The plaintiffs also argue consumers would reasonably interpret creator promotions differently from paid third-party advertisements for products and services such as Pepsi, NordVPN or Surfshark.

A user on reddit has been told that they will be unable to sign into their account in a few days, which means that they won't be able to like, subscribe, have memberships and or create playlists. Plus, their youtube channel will no longer be visible and or be able to post videos or create comments

they say it has to do with local Florida law being enacted (which seems to be house bill 3, which I believe is getting more enforced these days)

the user says that their account was a minor account

as deep humor points out, there is a high chance that youtube's AI figured out that the account was a younger account and according to Florida law, people under a certain age can't create a account, that age being under 14, with 15 year olds needing parental permission

this stuff is confirmed by the youtube support page saying the same thing as was said before, with the article even talking about how you can use age verification to confirm your an adult or not

it also seems that you will be able to sign back in when your 16 years old. "To re-enable your channel, follow the steps to create a new account. Once the steps have been completed, your old channel will be reinstated"

(thank you all for bringing this to our attention)

Josh has announced that the CSAM ACT has been added into the the potential text of the NDDA (National Defense Authorization Act) which is a must pass bill

this doesn't mean the text is automatically added into the bill itself, but it's part of the text that is being considered at this very moment

it's not currently known when a vote or a debate for this will happen, but it's also interesting to see this because the senate judiciary was doing something very similar back in June

Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin were pushing for the DEFIANCE ACT and the STOP CSAM act

I don't know if it means anything, but Dick Durbin and Josh have worked together to put the stop csam act back in May of 2025

why STOP CSAM ACT

the stop CSAM ACT would allow for more censorship by hurting thing like section 230 by forcing the platform to more heavily censor their stuff in order to avoid getting sued for things that section 230 would've protected them from

to quote my old self and an old article

"Could hurt section 230

“The bill allows a new type of lawsuit to be filed against internet platforms, accusing them of “facilitating” child sexual exploitation based on the speech of others.

It does this by creating an exception to Section 230, the foundational law of the internet and online speech.

Section 230 provides partial immunity to internet intermediaries when sued over content posted by their users. Without that protection, platforms are much more likely to aggressively monitor and censor users.”"

and also

the law allows courts to see companies be found liable for child exploitation that they could have never known about, unless they broke encryption and or increased surveillance

contact your representatives