I am the Gremlin

This man has tried to get rid of section 230 for years now, even trying to do it back during 2020

He also is so anti porn that “Candeub recently penned a report about how we need to criminalize pornography in order to protect marriage and promote human flourishing.”

He was attempted to put into that position before but “ Attorney General William Barr blocked the move privately, on the ground that Candeub lacked the conventional antitrust litigation experience required to run the division.”

https://reclaimthenet.org/adam-candeubs-plan-for-section-230-obscenity-and-your-hands

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/general/trump-nominates-adam-candeub-big-tech-critic-with-no-antitrust-trial-record-to-lead-doj-division/ar-AA28vTFk

https://reason.com/2026/07/22/trumps-new-doj-nominee-wants-to-ban-online-porn-and-prosecute-big-tech/

Read these articles to learn more about this creature

Maybe there’s some way we can block him again

🇺🇸⭐️SECTION 230 NEWS AND ADAM CANDEUB!⭐️🇺🇸

Yeah, I have heard of this man in the past. This is awful news! 😮‍💨

Got my own article to add:

https://reclaimthenet.org/adam-candeubs-plan-for-section-230-obscenity-and-your-hands

Through these articles, I can tell he has nothing better to do with this life. He clearly doesn't know what the dismantling of section 230 would do to the entire internet as a whole, and nobody is gonna stop porn that is virtually impossible. (That's how I can tell this has no idea what he is talking about.)

If he really wanted to protect marriage/human flourishing, what he would consider is making laws that help married couples ESPECIALLY regarding children, food, housing, financial aid, raising the minimum wage, free healthcare, etc. here in the US.

The reason humans are not flourishing and that the rate is going down is because when humans are stressed out in all sorts of ways, they can not see a future, and they can not flourish. A lot of people nowadays are putting their life on hold just to survive. I hate these out of touch people like Adam.

Just because you stop porn doesn't mean marriage/family is going to flourish. That is in idiotic conconlusion to cover up the real problem.

(He sounds like he's a part of the type of people that act holy than thou about being antiporn, but then they watch it on the DL. Like, dude, please shut up.)

Andy has been talking about the idea of a social media ban and how he wants to move forward with the idea

"He knows this ban is a critical first step to keeping kids safe online and preventing further tragedies for families" and with the rest of the quote talking about it being enforced in full and having a political consensus across parties

He is even going ahead with message screening, which is where your messages are scanned for 18+ content and must verify your age if there is 18+ content

Apple have already rolled this out, while google is starting to roll this out

Andy seems to be answering the question of digital ID, but his current answers are something else

Andy has been dodgy when it comes to answering questions of digital ID.

But during a QnA on Reddit, Andy basically said the UK shouldn't have digital ID yet, meaning that he still wants digital ID for the UK, but not at this current moment.

As cyberwaffle points out this answer was the most obvious since the labour party has been wanting digital ID for a while now

"The Labour Party are the spearhead of everything. The Prime Minister is the spokesperson for the party and the party hasn't changed that much. They are still a very authoritarian party. They still want to regulate the internet. They still want o introduce digital identification. And from everything we've seen so far, Andy Burnham will go ahead with all of the plans that were proposed in the last 2 years"

There's some basic things you can do

Download stuff like f-droid and use them and give them support in these trying times

You can also try contacting your regulators and telling them to stop google from doing this

sign petitions, share petitions

Spread the word about all of this stuff and why it matters so much, don't let people think this is okay and that android shouldn't be forced through this.

Don't let people who think google is unstoppable, they can be stopped, you just gotta fight hard

I lot more detailed version can be found here (spread this website as well)

source

TL;DR

This is gonna be a very simplified version of this article

The 5th circuit court blocked parts of the SCOPE ACT

This is because of section 230 and his it “protects social media companies from civil liability for user content”

Which basically means that social media sites and companies are protected from the stuff their users posted

This means that the filtering and monitoring of content is blocked and preempted by section 230

However, the age verification for porn sites still stands because of the Supreme Court ruling of FSC v. Paxt

the full thing

“In a 2-1 decision, the ​5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said a federal law that broadly shields ​the industry from liability for information posted by third parties preempted the monitoring and ⁠filtering requirement in Texas' Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act, or SCOPE Act.”

“A lower court had issued ​injunctions blocking parts of the law, which took effect in September 2024 and is also known as Texas ​House Bill 18.”

“Friday's decision was a victory for the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice,

States and social media companies have long been at odds over ​whether Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act shields the industry from responsibility to police user content.”

“In March, a different ‌federal ⁠appeals court voided much of an injunction that blocked California from enforcing its own law, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, shielding children from harmful social media content

section 230

“Circuit Judge Dana Douglas wrote that Section 230 protects social media companies from civil liability for user content”

“The New Orleans-based appeals court upheld an age-verification requirement in the Texas law. (Not the social media one, but the porn one based on the Supreme Court case)

It also said the nonprofit Students Engaged in Advancing Texas, ​which also sued to block the law, lacked standing.

Circuit Judge James Ho partially ​dissented (disagree with the rest of the opinion) and ⁠would have upheld the Texas law, saying it "regulates curation, not publication—first-party speech, not third-party speech."

CCIA Chief Executive Matthew Schruers said the decision "confirmed that federal law bars Texas from impressing websites and services into the role of state censors."”

Paul ⁠Taske, director ​of the NetChoice Litigation Center, called the decision "a win for every ​Texan who believes the government has no business deciding what they can read, watch and say online."

The commerce is looking at the week of August 3rd to be a markup on kids digital bills and AI matters

“The panel had been aiming to hold the session next week, but Chair Cruz said on Wednesday there were "ongoing negotiations" over bills on the agenda”

Weekly reminder to call your Senators. They are still negotiating and the July 29th date stills seems to be the goal for a mark-up even though it hasn't been confirmed yet. I think the fact the House, Senate, and White House seem to be on separate pages is a good thing, and we need to take advantage of it.

Sen. Blackburn statement on her sitdown with Trump yesterday : He “understands that enacting federal standards to establish AI guardrails and protect children online is absolutely imperative before the end of this Congress.”

Trump doesn’t endorse “ Blackburn’s proposal (Senate KOSA+smart phone age verification+No Fakes+some preemption).

Commerce Chair Cruz, who was there, told POTUS he thought the combination would lose unified Senate R support.

Blackburn looks forward to “building bipartisan consensus”

Cruz would support the proposal if…

“Cruz would support Blackburn’s package in the upcoming Commerce Committee markup if she introduces it”

Ben Brody says

“Cruz would support Blackburn’s package in the upcoming Commerce Committee markup if she introduces it”

Despite believing it has a low chance of passing

<@&1440441931569299516> <@&1414292606359179354>

Trump doesn’t endorse blackburns framework, Cruz believes it won’t have enough support among senators to pass

Sen. Blackburn statement on her sitdown with Trump yesterday : He “understands that enacting federal standards to establish AI guardrails and protect children online is absolutely imperative before the end of this Congress.”

Trump doesn’t endorse “ Blackburn’s proposal (Senate KOSA+smart phone age verification+No Fakes+some preemption).

Commerce Chair Cruz, who was there, told POTUS he thought the combination would lose unified Senate R support.

Blackburn looks forward to “building bipartisan consensus”

Cruz would support the proposal if…

“Cruz would support Blackburn’s package in the upcoming Commerce Committee markup if she introduces it”

Ben Brody says

“Cruz would support Blackburn’s package in the upcoming Commerce Committee markup if she introduces it”

Despite believing it has a low chance of passing

On July 22, “when Google Play begins hosting competing app stores directly, letting users install them with the same tap that installs any ordinary app”

This comes from a court room retreat from epic games

Epic Games and Google jointly withdrew their motion to modify the permanent injunction that governs the Play Store, according to a filing submitted July 14 to Judge James Donato.

“The Parties respectfully withdraw their Renewed Joint Motion to Modify Permanent Injunction,”

the notice reads. Google told the court it “continues to comply with the Court’s Permanent Injunction, and that it is prepared to launch the remedies reflected in paragraphs 11-12 of the Permanent Injunction on July 22, 2026.”

These changes were ordered and upheld in the last 3 years, since 2024

“Google kept fighting anyway, and late last year it looked like the company had found an exit

striking a settlement with Epic that carried an $800 million partnership and let Google avoid carrying rival stores inside Play.

Pulling that settlement puts the original order back in charge, and the original order tells Google to open the gates.

Google framed the surrender as strategy.

“We’ve agreed with Epic to withdraw our motion to modify the US Court’s injunction rather than prolonging this process which creates uncertainty for the ecosystem,” spokesperson Dan Jackson said.

“US developers will find their listings, icons, descriptions, screenshots and all, automatically offered to third-party stores starting July 22 unless they opt out.

“Google Play’s service fee will continue to apply to apps downloaded in this manner,” the company notes, which tells you where the tollbooth still stands.”

However, US third party stores are being charged 5,000 for “security and policy reviews.” From Google

“Stores that want in have to be US-based registered organizations, keep “clear, non-discriminatory” trust and safety rules, stay open to every eligible developer, avoid distributing apps outside the country, and hold malware below 1 percent of “install attempts.”

Google keeps its hand on the catalog, the fees, and the rulebook even as it lets competitors through the door.

A store-within-a-store model Google resisted for years now sits a week away, and that direction favors anyone who believes one company should not decide what software you can install.”

developer ID is still an issue

On September of this year, (and January of 2027 for a full global roll out) Google will be requiring developers to sign up with Google

That means that they have to do things like give away your ID, pay a fee and other things that would hurt a lot of developers

Stuff like this will hurt developers by blocking their apps and force them hurt their privacy because no company should force you into giving away your ID

Keep on spreading the word of this

Marash and trump are meeting today to discuss tech issues, while it hasn’t been fully confirmed, it’s highly likely it’s about Marsha’s new package that has KOSA and App Store accountability

The August recess is heading towards them soon, so their acting fast

Senator Cruz is also hoping to mark up kid digital guardrails and AI bills soon, probably next week.

He also says that he is open to KOSA bills that are different from Blackburns

contact representatives

TL;DR

The EU has ordered Google to open android to rival AI bots, giving them more access to certain features, like having voice commands

Google was also ordered to share search data with third party search engines and AI chat bots, “That includes data Google uses to optimize its search engine.”

“Google will also have to provide the data at a fair price and through a clear process, the Commission said.”

Google has said that their worried about the privacy implications of this and that AI agents do have access to more controls, but phone makers make that choice to block certain features from them if they feel like their unsafe

full thing

“The European Commission on Thursday mandated that Google provide its competitors with greater access to AI capabilities on Android phones and to search data, saying the increased openness is needed to level the playing field in those areas.

The ruling stems from the European Union's Digital Markets Act, which is designed to ensure that powerful tech companies,

such as Google and Apple, can't unfairly dominate markets through their size and their gatekeeping powers.

In this case, the act requires Google to give third-party apps and services the same level of access to its software as it does for its own services.”

Henna Virkkunen, the Commission's executive vice president for tech sovereignty, security and democracy, said in a statement.

"With today's measures, we want to support innovation and diversity in the European Union, enabling fair competition in the markets of AI assistants for Android devices and search engines.

Thanks to these measures we hope to see emerging alternatives to Google Search and Google's AI services, such as Gemini, and that users in the EU can enjoy greater choice of services."

“The new ruling would mean, for instance, that third-party AIs could be activated with a voice command similar to "Hey, Google" or could be delegated tasks such as booking a taxi, the Commission said.”

About 60% of people in the EU have an android phone

search data

Google also has to share their search data with third party search engines and AI chatbots

“That includes data Google uses to optimize its search engine.

The Commission said this requirement is important for developing and optimizing third-party search engines, including privacy-focused alternatives”

“Google will also have to provide the data at a fair price and through a clear process, the Commission said. “

Google hates this.

“In its response to the ruling, Google homed in on what it said are the dangers the DMA-driven changes would pose to users.

"Today's decisions risk undermining vital privacy and security guardrails for millions of Europeans," Kent Walker, president of global affairs for Google and parent company Alphabet, wrote in a blog post.

"We have repeatedly offered solutions to safeguard users while satisfying the DMA's goals, but these rulings discount extensive evidence of user harm."

Google has reiterated these privacy concerns before and have suggested alternatives

“it suggested would ensure, for instance, that query-related data is passed along to recipients while providing better personal data protection.

Google also proposed that anonymization be performed by technical and legal experts, but said the EC rejected the proposal.”

TLDR;

This new rule would require companies to collect Your name, physical address, government-issued ID number, and an alternate phone number before turning on your phone

They will verify and keep that data four years after your service ends

“Re-verification triggered by "red flags" like unusual call volumes or cryptocurrency payments”

The goal is to take down robocalls

People like the EFF and ACLU point out that citizens shouldn’t have to give away their privacy just to fight a few robot calls.

People of domestic violence, whistleblowers, victims of trafficking and journalist would be victims of this

And of course “roughly 15 million U.S. adults without a driver's license, disproportionately Black and Hispanic Americans, people with disabilities, and lower-income households.”

Plus, around 144 million records were leaked by both AT&AT and comcast combined

The comments on this rule are open right now

write them a comment and let them know that you will not give away your privacy

fcc comment

how to comment on the FCC

full thing

The FCC's new proposal, FCC 26-27, would make you have to provide an ID and a home address and an alternative phone number before getting service

“What the FCC Actually Wants From You

Every company that puts a call on the public phone network would face the same sweeping identity requirements under this proposal.

Mobile carriers, landline providers, VoIP services, and prepaid phone sellers are all covered.

The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, adopted unanimously on April 30, 2026, converts broad KYC principles into hard obligations.

Here's what providers would need from you before activation:”

“Your name, physical address, government-issued ID number, and an alternate phone number — collected before service turns on

Verification of that data, not just collection

Records retained for four years after your service ends

Re-verification triggered by "red flags" like unusual call volumes or cryptocurrency payments”

why?

“The FCC frames this as a robocall killer. Banking groups point to nearly $200 billion in annual fraud losses, according to the American Bankers Association — and phone scams are genuinely devastating.

But privacy advocates note that most illegal robocalls originate internationally, and fewer than half of U.S. telecoms have fully implemented STIR/SHAKEN, the existing caller authentication standard built specifically for this problem.

The FCC hasn't finished deploying the targeted fix it already has.

"Americans should not have to sacrifice their privacy because the Commission hasn't exhausted more targeted alternatives to stop robocalls." — EFF and ACLU joint filing.”

People need private phones

Domestic abuse victims, “trafficking victims, whistleblowers, journalists protecting sources

and roughly 15 million U.S. adults without a driver's license, disproportionately Black and Hispanic Americans, people with disabilities, and lower-income households.

An ID requirement for basic phone service doesn't inconvenience criminal networks nearly as much as it blocks the people the system should protect.”

protecting information with a unworthy protector

“The FCC wants telecoms to hold your most sensitive data — the same companies with a proven record of losing it.”

AT&T lost over 109 million records in 2024

Comcast's Xfinity division exposed 36 million accounts the year before

Giving ID’s to these companies would risk everything for the people forced to give away their ID’s

“It's like giving your spare house keys to someone who locks themselves out on a weekly basis and calling it a security upgrade.”

The FCC hasn't finalized anything yet, and those gaps are exactly where public input can still matter.

Your window to shape this rule is short, and the stakes for everyday anonymity are very real.”

leave a comment here!

hello there! it seems that some people are not really sure how to comment on the FCC, well I'm here to tell you do it!

firstly, you'll want to find something that says "+New filling / +express" (please look at the photo to see what I mean, but it should be under the docket number on the FCC website link)

express makes it quicker for you to comment, while normal filing allows you to be more detailed, even supporting file attachments

for both of these, you'll need the file number, which in this case is "17-59" and that should be under "select the FCC proceedings"

now, don't worry about the items with no red star, those don't matter to us, only the items with the red star is important to us becuase those are things that are required, the other stuff is not required

also, don't forget to put in "type of filing" as "comment"

make sure you write as detailed as possible, you want to put out all of the reasons as to why this rule would not work at all. The more detailed you are, the reasons can be given as to why this is a bad idea. Don't curse, don't insult, they won't listen to those comments.

the docket that you need to comment on

comment

more help

help 1

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