things I like

did you see they made jane prentiss from the magnus archives real

For example: I can't read any ABO AUs set in England or France because while I can suspend my disbelief far enough for a gender trinary set up, I can't suspend it enough to believe those two countries would still be distinct entities in a alternate history where Richard the Lionheart could have impregnated Philip II.

If there was a viable dynastic future with Richard, Philip would have climbed him like an oak and dragged him to the altar if he had to. It's a match that makes perfect sense from both their points of view: Philip gets Aquitaine back under French rule, the best general in Europe on his council, and a powerful check on the Angevins... then unexpectedly (after Henry the Young bites it) the entire Kingdom of England for his Capetian dynasty. Richard meanwhile gets to stick it to his father, secure Aquitaine's prosperity, and gets the leverage to start pushing for his mother's release. Then when Henry kicks the bucket Richard doesn't actually have to be King of England in anything but name: Philip can run the countries and unify the Crowns and what not while Richard runs off to go Crusading.

Plus they also like, loved each other and stuff and being able to get to be together long term instead of being torn apart by politics would have been cool. But I'm mainly obsessed with the historical and dynastic implications.

In this AU, it’s unlikely that an Anglo-Frank union could last due to differences in succession laws between the two realms. What would happen if an Alpha died without an heir? Would Betas be treated similarly to Alphas for succession purposes? Could succession pass through Beta or even Omega lines? Succession laws were quite difficult to change, with modifications to royal succession often resulting in civil and/or international wars.

He was talking about it in the context of designing robots that would go in and stop nuclear reactor meltdowns, something that would 100% destroy the robot, but they would be designed to keep functioning and fighting the meltdown for as long as possible. He had some designs where over 80% of the robot has died and it was functionally dragging its corpse around by its one working arm because one more minute of functionality might save thousands.

Let's take sinners for example. There is a white guy with like 2 lines exclusively about hating minorities in this movie. His name is not Ray, it's Bert (I had to look that up on imdb), he is the kkk-vampire and not a single person on earth is writing self-insert fic about this guy. They are writing self-insert fic about the central antagonist, who is also a vampire. Girls like villains, what else is new.

And sure, maybe I am being to literal here, but yelling at people that they are liking a thing in the wrong way is just the fastest way to kill a fandom. The underlying things this post is pointing at are real and they do exist. Societal beauty standards center white people, a lot of (white) people have are harder time sympathising with people of color. But those things are not fandom problems. They are just general problems of living in white supremacist society and they show up in all facets of or society including fandom. But you are not gonna fix them by telling people they are somehow bad for liking the sexy vampire.

Am I “making up a guy to be mad at” if by your own admission you are a fan of a character that fits the hypothetical scenario that I described in the original post? That you brought up, because I didn’t bring up Sinners (2025).

You admit that societal beauty standards favor white people (an odd thing to bring up), and in turn white people have a harder time sympathizing with people of color (a poor excuse for racism), and yet you think this doesn’t factor into fandom? You think white ppl, from the society that you acknowledge has racist biases, will somehow leave those same prejudices when engaging in fandom? You think that the “real world” is a completely separate vacuum from the art that leads to fandom?

“Girls like villains” a very strange, pointedly projective, and dismissive of the main point of the post: racism. You think women of color like racist villains? Or is it just white women? Because that’s what we’re talking about here: racist characters, specifically. With this line of thinking, you put forth that either the women in a fandom, Sinners (2025) by your example, a predominantly Black led piece of media which centers Black women as they’re integral to the story, should categorically like the “sexy vampire” despite the fact that he’s terrorizing Black people throughout the movie just because he’s the villain. Or you put forth that there are no women of color in the Sinners fandom, which would be an odd thing to think given the previous points.

Where did I admit that? Because I don't think Remmick fits the criteria? That is my point. And again, I brought him up, bc he is the number one character mentioned in the notes, I should have made this clearer.

Why is that a odd thing to bring up? Is that not what your post is about? And no, I do think, people bring their biases with them absolutely, and I think I said that in my post.

I don't speak for women of color. I also don't think that everyone has to like villains or Remmick all the time. That seems a bit of a uncharitable reading. I am just unsurprised that a lot of people do like him. I also don't really think real world morality is a reason to like or not like a character or that liking a character endorses like their actions?

I am not that personally attacked to be honest, as I said I picked Remmick, bc he was the most mentioned character. I do like him, but I would not say he is my personal favorite and pretty much the whole cast of Sinners is amazing. I just wish there way more discussion about all of them, than about the preferences of some fans.

In the end I think, that we do agree that racial biases exist, and that they shape who we relate to or like as characters and that broadly speaking it is good when people examine that. (And yeah, I am trying to have a general discussion, but that includes me to of course. I don't think I am above that.)

But I also think that it is fine to like problematic or racist characters. I think that's fine. In Sinners for example, I do think Remmick is a well written character and he has a lot of traits people gravitate towards in general (like independently from whiteness, people often like villains or vampires etc.). So I am not surprised people like him. I do too. And I don't disagree with your reading of what he represents in the movie, but tbh, that makes him narratively more interesting, not less.

Additionally, I just don't think, telling people that liking certain characters is bad, is an effective way to combat racism. Maybe you are gonna say, that's not what you were doing, you were just venting on your own blog, which is of course fine. I should really have made clearer, when I was taking about like you, and where I was talking about people in the notes. That's my bad. Or maybe you think that that is an effective thing to do, then we are just gonna have to disagree on that, which is also fine of course.

I pose the following question. Even if Remmick wasn’t a metaphor for colonization, assimilation, cultural usurpation (which he is), even if he was a pure hearted character who didn’t represent how racism isn’t just slinging slurs, can you imagine how it feels to the Black fanbase that he has almost double the amount of fanfictions then the main characters and the rest of the Black cast?

Credit to @mayhamster for providing these screenshots

To answer your question, I don't know.

A week ago I would have said of course I understand that. I kind of want to say that now. And like intellectually I do.

But I do have to face the fact, that I saw your post and the notes and I thought yeah they have a point, but this negativity is just ruining it for everyone, why don't they just create (positive) content about the black characters too and then everyone wins. Two cakes and all that. And I didn't just think that, I replied that to your personal post.

So in that moment at least I did not extend you empathy. So I do have to ask myself if I understand as deeply as I thought.

So, eh, let me get back to you in 1-3 business month?

Let's take sinners for example. There is a white guy with like 2 lines exclusively about hating minorities in this movie. His name is not Ray, it's Bert (I had to look that up on imdb), he is the kkk-vampire and not a single person on earth is writing self-insert fic about this guy. They are writing self-insert fic about the central antagonist, who is also a vampire. Girls like villains, what else is new.

And sure, maybe I am being to literal here, but yelling at people that they are liking a thing in the wrong way is just the fastest way to kill a fandom. The underlying things this post is pointing at are real and they do exist. Societal beauty standards center white people, a lot of (white) people have are harder time sympathising with people of color. But those things are not fandom problems. They are just general problems of living in white supremacist society and they show up in all facets of or society including fandom. But you are not gonna fix them by telling people they are somehow bad for liking the sexy vampire.

Am I “making up a guy to be mad at” if by your own admission you are a fan of a character that fits the hypothetical scenario that I described in the original post? That you brought up, because I didn’t bring up Sinners (2025).

You admit that societal beauty standards favor white people (an odd thing to bring up), and in turn white people have a harder time sympathizing with people of color (a poor excuse for racism), and yet you think this doesn’t factor into fandom? You think white ppl, from the society that you acknowledge has racist biases, will somehow leave those same prejudices when engaging in fandom? You think that the “real world” is a completely separate vacuum from the art that leads to fandom?

“Girls like villains” a very strange, pointedly projective, and dismissive of the main point of the post: racism. You think women of color like racist villains? Or is it just white women? Because that’s what we’re talking about here: racist characters, specifically. With this line of thinking, you put forth that either the women in a fandom, Sinners (2025) by your example, a predominantly Black led piece of media which centers Black women as they’re integral to the story, should categorically like the “sexy vampire” despite the fact that he’s terrorizing Black people throughout the movie just because he’s the villain. Or you put forth that there are no women of color in the Sinners fandom, which would be an odd thing to think given the previous points.

Where did I admit that? Because I don't think Remmick fits the criteria? That is my point. And again, I brought him up, bc he is the number one character mentioned in the notes, I should have made this clearer.

Why is that a odd thing to bring up? Is that not what your post is about? And no, I do think, people bring their biases with them absolutely, and I think I said that in my post.

I don't speak for women of color. I also don't think that everyone has to like villains or Remmick all the time. That seems a bit of a uncharitable reading. I am just unsurprised that a lot of people do like him. I also don't really think real world morality is a reason to like or not like a character or that liking a character endorses like their actions?

I am not that personally attacked to be honest, as I said I picked Remmick, bc he was the most mentioned character. I do like him, but I would not say he is my personal favorite and pretty much the whole cast of Sinners is amazing. I just wish there way more discussion about all of them, than about the preferences of some fans.

In the end I think, that we do agree that racial biases exist, and that they shape who we relate to or like as characters and that broadly speaking it is good when people examine that. (And yeah, I am trying to have a general discussion, but that includes me to of course. I don't think I am above that.)

But I also think that it is fine to like problematic or racist characters. I think that's fine. In Sinners for example, I do think Remmick is a well written character and he has a lot of traits people gravitate towards in general (like independently from whiteness, people often like villains or vampires etc.). So I am not surprised people like him. I do too. And I don't disagree with your reading of what he represents in the movie, but tbh, that makes him narratively more interesting, not less.

Additionally, I just don't think, telling people that liking certain characters is bad, is an effective way to combat racism. Maybe you are gonna say, that's not what you were doing, you were just venting on your own blog, which is of course fine. I should really have made clearer, when I was taking about like you, and where I was talking about people in the notes. That's my bad. Or maybe you think that that is an effective thing to do, then we are just gonna have to disagree on that, which is also fine of course.

Let's take sinners for example. There is a white guy with like 2 lines exclusively about hating minorities in this movie. His name is not Ray, it's Bert (I had to look that up on imdb), he is the kkk-vampire and not a single person on earth is writing self-insert fic about this guy. They are writing self-insert fic about the central antagonist, who is also a vampire. Girls like villains, what else is new.

And sure, maybe I am being to literal here, but yelling at people that they are liking a thing in the wrong way is just the fastest way to kill a fandom. The underlying things this post is pointing at are real and they do exist. Societal beauty standards center white people, a lot of (white) people have are harder time sympathising with people of color. But those things are not fandom problems. They are just general problems of living in white supremacist society and they show up in all facets of or society including fandom. But you are not gonna fix them by telling people they are somehow bad for liking the sexy vampire.

Anyway, I'm not sure if you're white but if you are, I think you should consider deeply how white supremacy has benefited you and hurt others, rather than just accepting it as part of society. I think you need to begin the internal work of questioning why you always latch onto white male characters, even if they are not the main character, or are horribly misogynistic, racist, etc. You should consider how your underlying beliefs or racial prejudices affect your fandom choices or what you find yourself gravitating towards. Ask yourself why you are so deeply programmed with white beauty standards, and how you can grow past that.

This can help you interact with fandom in a more critical way, like the original post is doing, rather than claiming the original post, which calls out racist patterns in fandom, is part of what's killing fandoms...

Lastly, fandom doesn't exist in a vacuum, nothing does. White supremacy does in fact inform your opinions and thoughts, as it does to us all. As an adult, it's your job to begin deconstructing these ideas in order to truly push back against it.

What makes you believe I always like white male characters exclusively? Why do you think I am not aware that our taste are shaped by our internal biases, when I brought that up in my post?

I just don't think that posts like the one above are very constructive.

Let's take sinners for example. There is a white guy with like 2 lines exclusively about hating minorities in this movie. His name is not Ray, it's Bert (I had to look that up on imdb), he is the kkk-vampire and not a single person on earth is writing self-insert fic about this guy. They are writing self-insert fic about the central antagonist, who is also a vampire. Girls like villains, what else is new.

And sure, maybe I am being to literal here, but yelling at people that they are liking a thing in the wrong way is just the fastest way to kill a fandom. The underlying things this post is pointing at are real and they do exist. Societal beauty standards center white people, a lot of (white) people have are harder time sympathising with people of color. But those things are not fandom problems. They are just general problems of living in white supremacist society and they show up in all facets of or society including fandom. But you are not gonna fix them by telling people they are somehow bad for liking the sexy vampire.

And to your points about Sinners. I am not separating Remmick from anything. I don't disagree with your reading of him as a culture vulture or with the underlying racism. I also think these are themes of the movie. I am just saying that he is a complex character with a prominent role in the film and therefore it makes sense that people find him interesting and like him as a character.

Let's take sinners for example. There is a white guy with like 2 lines exclusively about hating minorities in this movie. His name is not Ray, it's Bert (I had to look that up on imdb), he is the kkk-vampire and not a single person on earth is writing self-insert fic about this guy. They are writing self-insert fic about the central antagonist, who is also a vampire. Girls like villains, what else is new.

And sure, maybe I am being to literal here, but yelling at people that they are liking a thing in the wrong way is just the fastest way to kill a fandom. The underlying things this post is pointing at are real and they do exist. Societal beauty standards center white people, a lot of (white) people have are harder time sympathising with people of color. But those things are not fandom problems. They are just general problems of living in white supremacist society and they show up in all facets of or society including fandom. But you are not gonna fix them by telling people they are somehow bad for liking the sexy vampire.

My definitive ranking of my least favorite bodies of water! These are ranked from least to most scary (1/10 is okay, 10/10 gives me nightmares). I’m sorry this post is long, I have a lot of thoughts and feelings about this.

The Great Blue Hole, Belize

I’ve been here! I have snorkeled over this thing! It is terrifying! The water around the hole is so shallow you can’t even swim over the coral without bumping it, and then there’s a little slope down, and then it just fucking drops off into the abyss! When you’re over the hole the water temperature drops like 10 degrees and it’s midnight blue even when you’re right by the surface. Anyway. The Great Blue Hole is a massive underwater cave, and its roughly 410 feet deep. Overall, it’s a relatively safe area to swim. It’s a popular tourist attraction and recreational divers can even go down and explore some of the caves. People do die at the Blue Hole, but it is generally from a lack of diving experience rather than anything sinister going on down in the depths. My rating for this one is 1/10 because I’ve been here and although it’s kinda freaky it’s really not that bad.

Lake Baikal, Russia

When I want to give myself a scare I look at the depth diagram of this lake. It’s so deep because it’s not a regular lake, it’s a Rift Valley, A massive crack in the earth’s crust where the continental plates are pulling apart. It’s over 5,000 feet deep and contains one-fifth of all freshwater on Earth. Luckily, its not any more deadly than a normal lake. It just happens to be very, very, freakishly deep. My rating for this lake is a 2/10 because I really hate looking at the depth charts but just looking at the lake itself isn’t that scary.

Jacob’s Well, Texas

This “well” is actually the opening to an underwater cave system. It’s roughly 120 feet deep, surrounded by very shallow water. This area is safe to swim in, but diving into the well can be deadly. The cave system below has false exits and narrow passages, resulting in multiple divers getting trapped and dying. My rating is a 3/10, because although I hate seeing that drop into the abyss it’s a pretty safe place to swim as long as you don’t go down into the cave (which I sure as shit won’t).

The Devil’s Kettle, Minnesota

This is an area in the Brule River where half the river just disappears. It literally falls into a hole and is never seen again. Scientists have dropped in dye, ping pong balls, and other things to try and figure out where it goes, and the things they drop in never resurface. Rating is 4/10 because Sometimes I worry I’m going to fall into it.

Flathead Lake, Montana

Everyone has probably seen this picture accompanied by a description about how this lake is actually hundreds of feet deep but just looks shallow because the water is so clear. If that were the case, this would definitely rank higher, but that claim is mostly bull. Look at the shadow of the raft. If it were hundreds of feet deep, the shadow would look like a tiny speck. Flathead lake does get very deep, but the spot the picture was taken in is fairly shallow. You can’t see the bottom in the deep parts. However, having freakishly clear water means you can see exactly where the sandy bottom drops off into blackness, so this still ranks a 5/10.

The Lower Congo River, multiple countries

Most of the Congo is a pretty normal, if large, River. In the lower section of it, however, lurks a disturbing surprise: massive underwater canyons that plunge down to 720 feet. The fish that live down there resemble cave fish, having no color, no eyes, and special sensory organs to find their way in the dark. These canyons are so sheer that they create massive rapids, wild currents and vortexes that can very easily kill you if you fall in. A solid 6/10, would not go there.

Little Crater Lake, Oregon

On first glance this lake doesn’t look too scary. It ranks this high because I really don’t like the sheer drop off and how clear it is (because it shows you exactly how deep it goes). This lake is about 100 feet across and 45 feet deep, and I strongly feel that this is too deep for such a small lake. Also, the water is freezing, and if you fall into the lake your muscles will seize up and you’ll sink and drown. I don’t like that either. 7/10.

Grand Turk 7,000 ft drop off

No. 8/10. I hate it.

Gulf of Corryvreckan, Scotland

Due to a quirk in the sea floor, there is a permanent whirlpool here. This isn’t one of those things that looks scary but actually won’t hurt you, either. It absolutely will suck you down if you get too close. Scientists threw a mannequin with a depth gauge into it and when it was recovered the gauge showed it went down to over 600 feet. If you fall into this whirlpool you will die. 9/10 because this seems like something that should only be in movies.

The Bolton Strid, England

This looks like an adorable little creek in the English countryside but it’s not. Its really not. Statistically speaking, this is the most deadly body of water in the world. It has a 100% mortality rate. There is no recorded case of anyone falling into this river and coming out alive. This is because, a little ways upstream, this isn’t a cute little creek. It’s the River Wharfe, a river approximately 30 feet wide. This river is forced through a tiny crack in the earth, essentially turning it on its side. Now, instead of being 30 feet wide and 6 feet deep, it’s 6 feet wide and 30 feet deep (estimated, because no one actually knows how deep the Strid is). The currents are deadly fast. The banks are extremely undercut and the river has created caves, tunnels and holes for things (like bodies) to get trapped in. The innocent appearance of the Strid makes this place a death trap, because people assume it’s only knee-deep and step in to never be seen again. I hate this river. I have nightmares about it. I will never go to England just because I don’t want to be in the same country as this people-swallowing stream. 10/10, I live in constant fear of this place.

Honorable mention: The Quarry, Pennsylvania

I don’t know if that’s it’s actual name. This lake gets an honorable mention not because it’s particularly deep or dangerous, but it’s where I almost drowned during a scuba diving accident.

Snake: “He was at church when a bomb went off, got pierced by a crucifix, survived by drinking his family’s blood.”

Raiden: “So that’s why he’s called Vamp?”

and I just

sorry

I have a lot of thoughts.

Because it is also extremely out of touch to presume that access to social media provides safety and community the same way it does when the average tumblr user was a teen. Tumblr hasn't changed much (that's why a lot of us like it here lbr) but as a whole, the social media landscape is vastly different than it was even five years ago and it keeps changing alarmingly fast.

Dating myself here, but when I was a teen, apps weren't really a thing yet. I used tumblr and facebook on my laptop and while I had a smartphone by my late teens, the facebook messenger app was kind of janky and tumblr didn't have one. People mostly imported all their photos from their phone or their camera to a bigger device and then posted photo albums on facebook that you could untag yourself from if you didn't want to be in them.

And you got warnings like "the internet is forever" and "your future boss could see that clearly drunk picture of you at a college party", but it frankly didn't have the immediacy to concern me. If I was uncomfortable with a picture, I untagged myself, or asked people to take photos down, and they did. Maybe someone downloaded a picture of me, but I never found out about it. Honestly, it was kind of thrilling--the thought of friends from high school seeing pictures of all the cool stuff college me got to do.

Here's a brief list of some social media related things that have happened at the school I teach at this academic year (keep in mind that all students are supposed to hand in their phones at the start of the day. Many just don't and tell us they didn't bring them to school, and we can't search their bags or their persons, nor would I want to):

Fifth grader filmed other fifth grader using the toilet, then posted it on TikTok

Fifth grader uses WhatsApp voice messages to terrorize a classmate with constant threats and insults (note that WhatsApp and Signal are not being banned for under 16s!)

Ninth graders invent the game "dick or boob" (it's punchier in German) where they livestream to an audience and whatever body part the audience wants to see, they show. The police had to come to school for that one, since it counts as the dissemination of child pornography.

Students en masse using second and third devices to use AI on written exams. They hand in one device, keep the other, and use it to cheat.

Using social media for bullying (photo manipulation of peers via AI, drawing cum on a classmate's face to imply they're gay. This is all still fifth graders)

I don't say any of this because I think banning social media is a good idea. As it's happening, it's naive and short-sighted and most importantly it will not work.

But it tells us something: the UK government is scared. And they absolutely should be. Because things are going very, very badly in education right now.

In most European and North American countries, literacy is on a sharp decline, particularly for students from low socio-economic brackets. At the same time, the diagnoses for various learning disabilities are up. More and more teachers report disobedient, even violent behavior on school grounds--again, mostly in low socio-economic brackets. If you've ever had the misfortune to enter a staff room, you'll hear endless complaints not just about kids these days but most especially about parents these days. They aren't raising their kids to be respectful, they aren't working on literacy at home, they aren't...etc. etc.

What these teachers mean at heart is that when we were at school, there was a social contract that children had to respect their teachers and do as they say, and if children don't do that there will be consequences. That contract is no longer in effect. On either end--many children, especially children whose family lives set different priorities than schooling, see no reason to respect or obey teachers, not even on something so simple as "open your books to page 12 please". And schools are hesitant to enact real consequences because of the threat of lawsuits and the endless bureaucracy in an already overtaxed system.

And some of all that is definitely the influence of cell phones and social media in our lives. Endless scrolling shortens attention spans. I literally cannot watch a movie with my class because almost no child in it can watch one narrative for 90 mins without getting bored and disruptive.

Busy, distracted parents who are on social media themselves use their phones to occupy upset toddlers, which stimulates them more and also teaches them to ask for that kind of stimulation; parents who have never read for pleasure themselves don't often read to their children, and we know for a fact that early exposure to books and reading is a huge determining factor in later-in-life literacy.

On the flip side, more "traditional" parents who try to keep their kids off social media often simply do not understand the landscape and rely entirely on their kids to help them organize digital aspects of life which are mandatory today (schools send emails now! You have to be able to check your email! You would not believe how many parents can't!). They then entrust young teens with the responsibility to manage their own online experience (because they don't know how to do it) and an 11-13-year-old is probably not ready to be the person deciding these things.

But the time to regulate social media was two decades ago and the place to do it was in international cooperation. The horse has very much left the barn and closing it and locking it up tight does nothing but leave a very wet horse standing outside in the rain. Additionally, the paddock it's running around in isn't just the UK's paddock, it's a global paddock, so the horse can just mosey into any other barn. This metaphor has gotten away from me, but you see what I mean: Banning social media for certain age groups is too little, too late.

It also, as far as I can tell, is playing pretty loose with who will actually be held responsible when children don't adhere to the ban (which they won't). Every time this has been tried, multinational media corporations have very successfully argued that they are not responsible for other people's children and therefor the parents are liable for kids getting into social media.

And to an extent I agree: parents should monitor their children's social media use and talk to them about what media they're consuming. For reasons mentioned above, a lot of parents don't. At the same time, these corporations continue to do nothing about the use of their platform to spread extremism and prejudice in all its forms and just straight up violence and disturbing content (we once had a case at school when several sixth graders were found crying in a bathroom because they had happened upon a TikTok of a cat being put in a blender).

However, ultimately, the UK ban is combating the symptom of a problem without ever acknowledging its source.

Because we know exactly what to do about the crisis in education. We have known for decades. Teachers have learned this in university since before I was alive. We need small class sizes and early literacy intervention. We need more staff and more space and an education system that allows for international comparability and most especially does not penalize students for being poor. We need to be able to move with the times and not get hamstringed by budget cuts and buildings and materials so old they are falling apart.

Would that solve every problem? No, not at all. We still have higher rates of learning disabilities than ever (because, I would argue, more people than ever are seeking diagnoses and because the lives we lead and the education paths we expect demand a certain type of behavior more than they used to).

We have tons of overworked parents who cannot get a handle on their children's media usage because the proliferation of social media and personal device usage is so explosive and unregulated a lot of adults can't get a handle on their own usage and many, many parents are not in a position (in terms of their own time and education) to figure it out. (And if I catch anyone saying those people shouldn't be having kids I would like you to take your euthanasia argument and exit).

The issue of "what social media is doing to our children" is too complex to be solved with a ban. It exists; people are not wrong to say it exists and that social media in the forms we have it today is not beneficial to society as a whole and children and teenagers specifically. Blindly banning the thing is not going to solve it but neither is saying that it's important and necessary and leaving it unchanged.

However, the solutions that might work are complex and difficult and involve things like:

comprehensive investment in education

international cooperation in governing internationally operating companies like meta, google, etc.

government support for families that enables households with two working parents to have time with their children, families with low literacy to have access to learning of their own

pushing more practically oriented education and career paths instead of expecting all kids and teens to thrive in a certain school environment

and, yes, oversight into who exactly is using social media how and restricting some content and function for some age groups. I'm not saying ban it, I am saying regulate it.