socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The first 20 minutes or so of this podcast by Kara Swisher and Professor Galloway was very well done, in my opinion, about the huge underlying issue here of our children being poisoned by the internet. "Violence entreprenuers" and "conflict entrepreneurs" were good phrases used. I think anybody listening could find something to quibble with - for example, though they mentioned access to guns, I think they underplayed that aspect. You'd find your own quibbles, however. . .

I really think there has to be some bipartisan common ground here that the internet is poisoning our children and it all needs to be reigned in. Professor Galloway suggested removing Section 230 for algorithmic content. I don't pretend to know about the law or technology enough to have a specific remedy other than strongly enforcing anti-trust which I support. But whatever your remedy, don't we have some kind of bipartisan common ground that the internet is making us addicts and causing severe damage to our society and our youth, in particular?

---

I am COMPLETELY in agreement.

For me I go back to actually a "non" political horror (if anything can be non-political) - the incel fueled massacre at UCSB in 2014. I am in NO WAY justifying the killing. But it is clear that that murderer was DEEPLY screwed up by an on-line culture and feed and conflict entrepreneurs that preyed on someone with deep underlying pschosis and then essentially set him off like a human bomb that lead to 6 deaths. His rantings are terrifying.

Now imagine a different world were youtube and facebook and other internet companies have a standard of not strict liability but some effort to moderate and flag and remove. No psychic affirmation from publishing a manifesto. No live streaming. No easily connecting with other lonely men (****, were we not mostly all lonely and occasionally depressed in our 20s).

Would Meta's and googles business model have to change? Absolutely!! Would they be less profitable? Probably. I highly doubt they close and then we would get several thousand of people paid (not a great job but a job) to sit and read posts flagged by AI and then take actions. We might also get the end of anominity on the internet - not a bad thing so that people can be held liable if they egg on and encourage someone to go on a killing spree.

I realize that this will create one big huge feeding frenzy from the trial bar. I am less keen on that then many. But I know that you gotta hold companies liable if they are making a product which is unsafe. Or put it another way.....most Pintos did not explode and kill people. Most absetos did not lead to lung disease. But sometimes cars did blow up. Asbestos improperly used does kill people. Tort liability works and the world is better when we use it to bring about more responbsible behavior.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

---

Scott Galloway is great (so is Kara Swisher, author of Burn Book - A Tech Love Story). Galloway is spot on, talking about the challenges that young men are facing.

From my own experience, this became obvious when teaching at a high school in which 75% of the graduates do not go on directly to a four-year college. Most of them, instead, go to the local CC, where a number of those flunk out after a year or two.

So what do you do when you're 20 years old and your opportunities for success are now greatly limited? Many of them had harbored ambitions of being a professional athlete, a rapper, or an influencer. Very few see themselves as a plumber or electrician because that would entail actual work. They have spent a couple of years living at home and working part-time in the service industry, so they've had some pocket money, which they've spent. And now their parents are suggesting that they move out on their own.

Talk about an inflection point. Yikes.

Sounds like the Fall of the Roman Empire.

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

Released text messages between Robinson and his roomate.

"Remember how I was engraving bullets?" he says: the roomate knew. pic.twitter.com/jczEsCaX1r

— captive dreamer (@avaricum777) September 16, 2025

"Remember how I was engraving bullets?"

---

Everything else in this exchange says the roommate did not know.

Robinson seemed to be into guns as a hobby (or at least was at some point in his life). He could easily have passed off "engraving bullets" as a strange part of his hobby, said he wanted to use them to shoot deer or something. It doesn't prove that he shared anything about his plans to kill a person.

I will hold out the possibility that there is more we don't know here, but that one sentence doesn't really prove anything.

sycasey said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Violence entreprenuer

---

Like Jimmy Kimmel?

Jimmy Kimmel LIED to his audience by claiming Charlie Kirk’s assassin is MAGA.

I’m tagging @jimmykimmel @JimmyKimmelLive so we can all demand he apologize & tell his audience the truth.

pic.twitter.com/F6INfxac6B

— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) September 17, 2025

---

This is not what Kimmel actually says. You can argue that he was implying it, but it's not what he said.

---

It's also completely different in tone and tenor from the cryptic "he knew" tweet. The tweet had implications of violent retribution against a small, marginalized group. The tweet is clickbait for violent extremism, whether by individuals or the state.

Big C said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The first 20 minutes or so of this podcast by Kara Swisher and Professor Galloway was very well done, in my opinion, about the huge underlying issue here of our children being poisoned by the internet. "Violence entreprenuers" and "conflict entrepreneurs" were good phrases used. I think anybody listening could find something to quibble with - for example, though they mentioned access to guns, I think they underplayed that aspect. You'd find your own quibbles, however. . .

I really think there has to be some bipartisan common ground here that the internet is poisoning our children and it all needs to be reigned in. Professor Galloway suggested removing Section 230 for algorithmic content. I don't pretend to know about the law or technology enough to have a specific remedy other than strongly enforcing anti-trust which I support. But whatever your remedy, don't we have some kind of bipartisan common ground that the internet is making us addicts and causing severe damage to our society and our youth, in particular?

---

I am COMPLETELY in agreement.

For me I go back to actually a "non" political horror (if anything can be non-political) - the incel fueled massacre at UCSB in 2014. I am in NO WAY justifying the killing. But it is clear that that murderer was DEEPLY screwed up by an on-line culture and feed and conflict entrepreneurs that preyed on someone with deep underlying pschosis and then essentially set him off like a human bomb that lead to 6 deaths. His rantings are terrifying.

Now imagine a different world were youtube and facebook and other internet companies have a standard of not strict liability but some effort to moderate and flag and remove. No psychic affirmation from publishing a manifesto. No live streaming. No easily connecting with other lonely men (****, were we not mostly all lonely and occasionally depressed in our 20s).

Would Meta's and googles business model have to change? Absolutely!! Would they be less profitable? Probably. I highly doubt they close and then we would get several thousand of people paid (not a great job but a job) to sit and read posts flagged by AI and then take actions. We might also get the end of anominity on the internet - not a bad thing so that people can be held liable if they egg on and encourage someone to go on a killing spree.

I realize that this will create one big huge feeding frenzy from the trial bar. I am less keen on that then many. But I know that you gotta hold companies liable if they are making a product which is unsafe. Or put it another way.....most Pintos did not explode and kill people. Most absetos did not lead to lung disease. But sometimes cars did blow up. Asbestos improperly used does kill people. Tort liability works and the world is better when we use it to bring about more responbsible behavior.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

---

Scott Galloway is great (so is Kara Swisher, author of Burn Book - A Tech Love Story). Galloway is spot on, talking about the challenges that young men are facing.

From my own experience, this became obvious when teaching at a high school in which 75% of the graduates do not go on directly to a four-year college. Most of them, instead, go to the local CC, where a number of those flunk out after a year or two.

So what do you do when you're 20 years old and your opportunities for success are now greatly limited? Many of them had harbored ambitions of being a professional athlete, a rapper, or an influencer. Very few see themselves as a plumber or electrician because that would entail actual work. They have spent a couple of years living at home and working part-time in the service industry, so they've had some pocket money, which they've spent. And now their parents are suggesting that they move out on their own.

Talk about an inflection point. Yikes.

---

Way too many young men / teens that i see are way too addicted to screens. Young women seem far more capable of escaping that addiction, though social media has wrecked plentyof them too.

It isn't the fault of women or a society treating boys and men unfairly. It is that we have created a society which males seem uniquely defenseless against. They need our help and we need to change things without giving in to this victimhood complex that the rights wants to foster.

Big C said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The first 20 minutes or so of this podcast by Kara Swisher and Professor Galloway was very well done, in my opinion, about the huge underlying issue here of our children being poisoned by the internet. "Violence entreprenuers" and "conflict entrepreneurs" were good phrases used. I think anybody listening could find something to quibble with - for example, though they mentioned access to guns, I think they underplayed that aspect. You'd find your own quibbles, however. . .

I really think there has to be some bipartisan common ground here that the internet is poisoning our children and it all needs to be reigned in. Professor Galloway suggested removing Section 230 for algorithmic content. I don't pretend to know about the law or technology enough to have a specific remedy other than strongly enforcing anti-trust which I support. But whatever your remedy, don't we have some kind of bipartisan common ground that the internet is making us addicts and causing severe damage to our society and our youth, in particular?

---

I am COMPLETELY in agreement.

For me I go back to actually a "non" political horror (if anything can be non-political) - the incel fueled massacre at UCSB in 2014. I am in NO WAY justifying the killing. But it is clear that that murderer was DEEPLY screwed up by an on-line culture and feed and conflict entrepreneurs that preyed on someone with deep underlying pschosis and then essentially set him off like a human bomb that lead to 6 deaths. His rantings are terrifying.

Now imagine a different world were youtube and facebook and other internet companies have a standard of not strict liability but some effort to moderate and flag and remove. No psychic affirmation from publishing a manifesto. No live streaming. No easily connecting with other lonely men (****, were we not mostly all lonely and occasionally depressed in our 20s).

Would Meta's and googles business model have to change? Absolutely!! Would they be less profitable? Probably. I highly doubt they close and then we would get several thousand of people paid (not a great job but a job) to sit and read posts flagged by AI and then take actions. We might also get the end of anominity on the internet - not a bad thing so that people can be held liable if they egg on and encourage someone to go on a killing spree.

I realize that this will create one big huge feeding frenzy from the trial bar. I am less keen on that then many. But I know that you gotta hold companies liable if they are making a product which is unsafe. Or put it another way.....most Pintos did not explode and kill people. Most absetos did not lead to lung disease. But sometimes cars did blow up. Asbestos improperly used does kill people. Tort liability works and the world is better when we use it to bring about more responbsible behavior.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

---

So what do you do when you're 20 years old and your opportunities for success are now greatly limited? Many of them had harbored ambitions of being a professional athlete, a rapper, or an influencer. Very few see themselves as a plumber or electrician because that would entail actual work.

---

Very few saw themselves as that because the orthodoxy of the United States became, you either went to college and got a degree or you'll be a failure in life. That's how we debt trapped millions of kids who had no business going to a 4 year univeristy.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Big C said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The first 20 minutes or so of this podcast by Kara Swisher and Professor Galloway was very well done, in my opinion, about the huge underlying issue here of our children being poisoned by the internet. "Violence entreprenuers" and "conflict entrepreneurs" were good phrases used. I think anybody listening could find something to quibble with - for example, though they mentioned access to guns, I think they underplayed that aspect. You'd find your own quibbles, however. . .

I really think there has to be some bipartisan common ground here that the internet is poisoning our children and it all needs to be reigned in. Professor Galloway suggested removing Section 230 for algorithmic content. I don't pretend to know about the law or technology enough to have a specific remedy other than strongly enforcing anti-trust which I support. But whatever your remedy, don't we have some kind of bipartisan common ground that the internet is making us addicts and causing severe damage to our society and our youth, in particular?

---

I am COMPLETELY in agreement.

For me I go back to actually a "non" political horror (if anything can be non-political) - the incel fueled massacre at UCSB in 2014. I am in NO WAY justifying the killing. But it is clear that that murderer was DEEPLY screwed up by an on-line culture and feed and conflict entrepreneurs that preyed on someone with deep underlying pschosis and then essentially set him off like a human bomb that lead to 6 deaths. His rantings are terrifying.

Now imagine a different world were youtube and facebook and other internet companies have a standard of not strict liability but some effort to moderate and flag and remove. No psychic affirmation from publishing a manifesto. No live streaming. No easily connecting with other lonely men (****, were we not mostly all lonely and occasionally depressed in our 20s).

Would Meta's and googles business model have to change? Absolutely!! Would they be less profitable? Probably. I highly doubt they close and then we would get several thousand of people paid (not a great job but a job) to sit and read posts flagged by AI and then take actions. We might also get the end of anominity on the internet - not a bad thing so that people can be held liable if they egg on and encourage someone to go on a killing spree.

I realize that this will create one big huge feeding frenzy from the trial bar. I am less keen on that then many. But I know that you gotta hold companies liable if they are making a product which is unsafe. Or put it another way.....most Pintos did not explode and kill people. Most absetos did not lead to lung disease. But sometimes cars did blow up. Asbestos improperly used does kill people. Tort liability works and the world is better when we use it to bring about more responbsible behavior.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

---

So what do you do when you're 20 years old and your opportunities for success are now greatly limited? Many of them had harbored ambitions of being a professional athlete, a rapper, or an influencer. Very few see themselves as a plumber or electrician because that would entail actual work.

---

Very few saw themselves as that because the orthodoxy of the United States became, you either went to college and got a degree or you'll be a failure in life. That's how we debt trapped millions of kids who had no business going to a 4 year univeristy.

---

Yes, too many kids went to college when they shouldnt have. Also, in the old days state schools were far more affordable. Also, student loan interest was much more manageable. When I graduated business school with six figure student loan debt I was able to lock in a fixed rate of 2%. Bush and the Republican Congress changed the rules on interest to end that and make student loan debt far more profitable for lenders. The gouging of the youth is disastrous.

BearlySane88 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Big C said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The first 20 minutes or so of this podcast by Kara Swisher and Professor Galloway was very well done, in my opinion, about the huge underlying issue here of our children being poisoned by the internet. "Violence entreprenuers" and "conflict entrepreneurs" were good phrases used. I think anybody listening could find something to quibble with - for example, though they mentioned access to guns, I think they underplayed that aspect. You'd find your own quibbles, however. . .

I really think there has to be some bipartisan common ground here that the internet is poisoning our children and it all needs to be reigned in. Professor Galloway suggested removing Section 230 for algorithmic content. I don't pretend to know about the law or technology enough to have a specific remedy other than strongly enforcing anti-trust which I support. But whatever your remedy, don't we have some kind of bipartisan common ground that the internet is making us addicts and causing severe damage to our society and our youth, in particular?

---

I am COMPLETELY in agreement.

For me I go back to actually a "non" political horror (if anything can be non-political) - the incel fueled massacre at UCSB in 2014. I am in NO WAY justifying the killing. But it is clear that that murderer was DEEPLY screwed up by an on-line culture and feed and conflict entrepreneurs that preyed on someone with deep underlying pschosis and then essentially set him off like a human bomb that lead to 6 deaths. His rantings are terrifying.

Now imagine a different world were youtube and facebook and other internet companies have a standard of not strict liability but some effort to moderate and flag and remove. No psychic affirmation from publishing a manifesto. No live streaming. No easily connecting with other lonely men (****, were we not mostly all lonely and occasionally depressed in our 20s).

Would Meta's and googles business model have to change? Absolutely!! Would they be less profitable? Probably. I highly doubt they close and then we would get several thousand of people paid (not a great job but a job) to sit and read posts flagged by AI and then take actions. We might also get the end of anominity on the internet - not a bad thing so that people can be held liable if they egg on and encourage someone to go on a killing spree.

I realize that this will create one big huge feeding frenzy from the trial bar. I am less keen on that then many. But I know that you gotta hold companies liable if they are making a product which is unsafe. Or put it another way.....most Pintos did not explode and kill people. Most absetos did not lead to lung disease. But sometimes cars did blow up. Asbestos improperly used does kill people. Tort liability works and the world is better when we use it to bring about more responbsible behavior.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

---

Scott Galloway is great (so is Kara Swisher, author of Burn Book - A Tech Love Story). Galloway is spot on, talking about the challenges that young men are facing.

From my own experience, this became obvious when teaching at a high school in which 75% of the graduates do not go on directly to a four-year college. Most of them, instead, go to the local CC, where a number of those flunk out after a year or two.

So what do you do when you're 20 years old and your opportunities for success are now greatly limited? Many of them had harbored ambitions of being a professional athlete, a rapper, or an influencer. Very few see themselves as a plumber or electrician because that would entail actual work. They have spent a couple of years living at home and working part-time in the service industry, so they've had some pocket money, which they've spent. And now their parents are suggesting that they move out on their own.

Talk about an inflection point. Yikes.

---

Way too many young men / teens that i see are way too addicted to screens. Young women seem far more capable of escaping that addiction, though social media has wrecked plentyof them too.

It isn't the fault of women or a society treating boys and men unfairly. It is that we have created a society which males seem uniquely defenseless against. They need our help and we need to change things without giving in to this victimhood complex that the rights wants to foster.

---

The young girls that I teach are 10x more addicted to their devices and the internet than the boys are.

---

What age group?

dajo9 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Big C said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The first 20 minutes or so of this podcast by Kara Swisher and Professor Galloway was very well done, in my opinion, about the huge underlying issue here of our children being poisoned by the internet. "Violence entreprenuers" and "conflict entrepreneurs" were good phrases used. I think anybody listening could find something to quibble with - for example, though they mentioned access to guns, I think they underplayed that aspect. You'd find your own quibbles, however. . .

I really think there has to be some bipartisan common ground here that the internet is poisoning our children and it all needs to be reigned in. Professor Galloway suggested removing Section 230 for algorithmic content. I don't pretend to know about the law or technology enough to have a specific remedy other than strongly enforcing anti-trust which I support. But whatever your remedy, don't we have some kind of bipartisan common ground that the internet is making us addicts and causing severe damage to our society and our youth, in particular?

---

I am COMPLETELY in agreement.

For me I go back to actually a "non" political horror (if anything can be non-political) - the incel fueled massacre at UCSB in 2014. I am in NO WAY justifying the killing. But it is clear that that murderer was DEEPLY screwed up by an on-line culture and feed and conflict entrepreneurs that preyed on someone with deep underlying pschosis and then essentially set him off like a human bomb that lead to 6 deaths. His rantings are terrifying.

Now imagine a different world were youtube and facebook and other internet companies have a standard of not strict liability but some effort to moderate and flag and remove. No psychic affirmation from publishing a manifesto. No live streaming. No easily connecting with other lonely men (****, were we not mostly all lonely and occasionally depressed in our 20s).

Would Meta's and googles business model have to change? Absolutely!! Would they be less profitable? Probably. I highly doubt they close and then we would get several thousand of people paid (not a great job but a job) to sit and read posts flagged by AI and then take actions. We might also get the end of anominity on the internet - not a bad thing so that people can be held liable if they egg on and encourage someone to go on a killing spree.

I realize that this will create one big huge feeding frenzy from the trial bar. I am less keen on that then many. But I know that you gotta hold companies liable if they are making a product which is unsafe. Or put it another way.....most Pintos did not explode and kill people. Most absetos did not lead to lung disease. But sometimes cars did blow up. Asbestos improperly used does kill people. Tort liability works and the world is better when we use it to bring about more responbsible behavior.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

---

Scott Galloway is great (so is Kara Swisher, author of Burn Book - A Tech Love Story). Galloway is spot on, talking about the challenges that young men are facing.

From my own experience, this became obvious when teaching at a high school in which 75% of the graduates do not go on directly to a four-year college. Most of them, instead, go to the local CC, where a number of those flunk out after a year or two.

So what do you do when you're 20 years old and your opportunities for success are now greatly limited? Many of them had harbored ambitions of being a professional athlete, a rapper, or an influencer. Very few see themselves as a plumber or electrician because that would entail actual work. They have spent a couple of years living at home and working part-time in the service industry, so they've had some pocket money, which they've spent. And now their parents are suggesting that they move out on their own.

Talk about an inflection point. Yikes.

---

Way too many young men / teens that i see are way too addicted to screens. Young women seem far more capable of escaping that addiction, though social media has wrecked plentyof them too.

It isn't the fault of women or a society treating boys and men unfairly. It is that we have created a society which males seem uniquely defenseless against. They need our help and we need to change things without giving in to this victimhood complex that the rights wants to foster.

---

The young girls that I teach are 10x more addicted to their devices and the internet than the boys are.

---

What age group?

---

Middle school so 11-14 generally

dajo9 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Big C said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The first 20 minutes or so of this podcast by Kara Swisher and Professor Galloway was very well done, in my opinion, about the huge underlying issue here of our children being poisoned by the internet. "Violence entreprenuers" and "conflict entrepreneurs" were good phrases used. I think anybody listening could find something to quibble with - for example, though they mentioned access to guns, I think they underplayed that aspect. You'd find your own quibbles, however. . .

I really think there has to be some bipartisan common ground here that the internet is poisoning our children and it all needs to be reigned in. Professor Galloway suggested removing Section 230 for algorithmic content. I don't pretend to know about the law or technology enough to have a specific remedy other than strongly enforcing anti-trust which I support. But whatever your remedy, don't we have some kind of bipartisan common ground that the internet is making us addicts and causing severe damage to our society and our youth, in particular?

---

I am COMPLETELY in agreement.

For me I go back to actually a "non" political horror (if anything can be non-political) - the incel fueled massacre at UCSB in 2014. I am in NO WAY justifying the killing. But it is clear that that murderer was DEEPLY screwed up by an on-line culture and feed and conflict entrepreneurs that preyed on someone with deep underlying pschosis and then essentially set him off like a human bomb that lead to 6 deaths. His rantings are terrifying.

Now imagine a different world were youtube and facebook and other internet companies have a standard of not strict liability but some effort to moderate and flag and remove. No psychic affirmation from publishing a manifesto. No live streaming. No easily connecting with other lonely men (****, were we not mostly all lonely and occasionally depressed in our 20s).

Would Meta's and googles business model have to change? Absolutely!! Would they be less profitable? Probably. I highly doubt they close and then we would get several thousand of people paid (not a great job but a job) to sit and read posts flagged by AI and then take actions. We might also get the end of anominity on the internet - not a bad thing so that people can be held liable if they egg on and encourage someone to go on a killing spree.

I realize that this will create one big huge feeding frenzy from the trial bar. I am less keen on that then many. But I know that you gotta hold companies liable if they are making a product which is unsafe. Or put it another way.....most Pintos did not explode and kill people. Most absetos did not lead to lung disease. But sometimes cars did blow up. Asbestos improperly used does kill people. Tort liability works and the world is better when we use it to bring about more responbsible behavior.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

---

Scott Galloway is great (so is Kara Swisher, author of Burn Book - A Tech Love Story). Galloway is spot on, talking about the challenges that young men are facing.

From my own experience, this became obvious when teaching at a high school in which 75% of the graduates do not go on directly to a four-year college. Most of them, instead, go to the local CC, where a number of those flunk out after a year or two.

So what do you do when you're 20 years old and your opportunities for success are now greatly limited? Many of them had harbored ambitions of being a professional athlete, a rapper, or an influencer. Very few see themselves as a plumber or electrician because that would entail actual work. They have spent a couple of years living at home and working part-time in the service industry, so they've had some pocket money, which they've spent. And now their parents are suggesting that they move out on their own.

Talk about an inflection point. Yikes.

---

Way too many young men / teens that i see are way too addicted to screens. Young women seem far more capable of escaping that addiction, though social media has wrecked plentyof them too.

It isn't the fault of women or a society treating boys and men unfairly. It is that we have created a society which males seem uniquely defenseless against. They need our help and we need to change things without giving in to this victimhood complex that the rights wants to foster.

---

The young girls that I teach are 10x more addicted to their devices and the internet than the boys are.

---

What age group?

---

Believe he said middle school before.

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Big C said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The first 20 minutes or so of this podcast by Kara Swisher and Professor Galloway was very well done, in my opinion, about the huge underlying issue here of our children being poisoned by the internet. "Violence entreprenuers" and "conflict entrepreneurs" were good phrases used. I think anybody listening could find something to quibble with - for example, though they mentioned access to guns, I think they underplayed that aspect. You'd find your own quibbles, however. . .

I really think there has to be some bipartisan common ground here that the internet is poisoning our children and it all needs to be reigned in. Professor Galloway suggested removing Section 230 for algorithmic content. I don't pretend to know about the law or technology enough to have a specific remedy other than strongly enforcing anti-trust which I support. But whatever your remedy, don't we have some kind of bipartisan common ground that the internet is making us addicts and causing severe damage to our society and our youth, in particular?

---

I am COMPLETELY in agreement.

For me I go back to actually a "non" political horror (if anything can be non-political) - the incel fueled massacre at UCSB in 2014. I am in NO WAY justifying the killing. But it is clear that that murderer was DEEPLY screwed up by an on-line culture and feed and conflict entrepreneurs that preyed on someone with deep underlying pschosis and then essentially set him off like a human bomb that lead to 6 deaths. His rantings are terrifying.

Now imagine a different world were youtube and facebook and other internet companies have a standard of not strict liability but some effort to moderate and flag and remove. No psychic affirmation from publishing a manifesto. No live streaming. No easily connecting with other lonely men (****, were we not mostly all lonely and occasionally depressed in our 20s).

Would Meta's and googles business model have to change? Absolutely!! Would they be less profitable? Probably. I highly doubt they close and then we would get several thousand of people paid (not a great job but a job) to sit and read posts flagged by AI and then take actions. We might also get the end of anominity on the internet - not a bad thing so that people can be held liable if they egg on and encourage someone to go on a killing spree.

I realize that this will create one big huge feeding frenzy from the trial bar. I am less keen on that then many. But I know that you gotta hold companies liable if they are making a product which is unsafe. Or put it another way.....most Pintos did not explode and kill people. Most absetos did not lead to lung disease. But sometimes cars did blow up. Asbestos improperly used does kill people. Tort liability works and the world is better when we use it to bring about more responbsible behavior.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

---

So what do you do when you're 20 years old and your opportunities for success are now greatly limited? Many of them had harbored ambitions of being a professional athlete, a rapper, or an influencer. Very few see themselves as a plumber or electrician because that would entail actual work.

---

Very few saw themselves as that because the orthodoxy of the United States became, you either went to college and got a degree or you'll be a failure in life. That's how we debt trapped millions of kids who had no business going to a 4 year univeristy.

---

Yes, too many kids went to college when they shouldnt have. Also, in the old days state schools were far more affordable. Also, student loan interest was much more manageable. When I graduated business school with six figure student loan debt I was able to lock in a fixed rate of 2%. Bush and the Republican Congress changed the rules on interest to end that and make student loan debt far more profitable for lenders. The gouging of the youth is disastrous.

---

I don't think so. Again, the VAST majority of college goers are NOT going to selectives where there horrror stories of working at starbucks with your BA in general studies are coming from. MOST kids go to school at unselectives. Much longer post but I really think this overstates the problem (and ignores that most "trades" now take a 2 year (or more) training program.

I work adjancent now to higher ed and before that for almost a decade inside. I have a pretty clear and level headed view of the problems (myriad) but it isn't too many kids going to college.

dajo9 said:

---

Big C said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The first 20 minutes or so of this podcast by Kara Swisher and Professor Galloway was very well done, in my opinion, about the huge underlying issue here of our children being poisoned by the internet. "Violence entreprenuers" and "conflict entrepreneurs" were good phrases used. I think anybody listening could find something to quibble with - for example, though they mentioned access to guns, I think they underplayed that aspect. You'd find your own quibbles, however. . .

I really think there has to be some bipartisan common ground here that the internet is poisoning our children and it all needs to be reigned in. Professor Galloway suggested removing Section 230 for algorithmic content. I don't pretend to know about the law or technology enough to have a specific remedy other than strongly enforcing anti-trust which I support. But whatever your remedy, don't we have some kind of bipartisan common ground that the internet is making us addicts and causing severe damage to our society and our youth, in particular?

---

I am COMPLETELY in agreement.

For me I go back to actually a "non" political horror (if anything can be non-political) - the incel fueled massacre at UCSB in 2014. I am in NO WAY justifying the killing. But it is clear that that murderer was DEEPLY screwed up by an on-line culture and feed and conflict entrepreneurs that preyed on someone with deep underlying pschosis and then essentially set him off like a human bomb that lead to 6 deaths. His rantings are terrifying.

Now imagine a different world were youtube and facebook and other internet companies have a standard of not strict liability but some effort to moderate and flag and remove. No psychic affirmation from publishing a manifesto. No live streaming. No easily connecting with other lonely men (****, were we not mostly all lonely and occasionally depressed in our 20s).

Would Meta's and googles business model have to change? Absolutely!! Would they be less profitable? Probably. I highly doubt they close and then we would get several thousand of people paid (not a great job but a job) to sit and read posts flagged by AI and then take actions. We might also get the end of anominity on the internet - not a bad thing so that people can be held liable if they egg on and encourage someone to go on a killing spree.

I realize that this will create one big huge feeding frenzy from the trial bar. I am less keen on that then many. But I know that you gotta hold companies liable if they are making a product which is unsafe. Or put it another way.....most Pintos did not explode and kill people. Most absetos did not lead to lung disease. But sometimes cars did blow up. Asbestos improperly used does kill people. Tort liability works and the world is better when we use it to bring about more responbsible behavior.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

---

Scott Galloway is great (so is Kara Swisher, author of Burn Book - A Tech Love Story). Galloway is spot on, talking about the challenges that young men are facing.

From my own experience, this became obvious when teaching at a high school in which 75% of the graduates do not go on directly to a four-year college. Most of them, instead, go to the local CC, where a number of those flunk out after a year or two.

So what do you do when you're 20 years old and your opportunities for success are now greatly limited? Many of them had harbored ambitions of being a professional athlete, a rapper, or an influencer. Very few see themselves as a plumber or electrician because that would entail actual work. They have spent a couple of years living at home and working part-time in the service industry, so they've had some pocket money, which they've spent. And now their parents are suggesting that they move out on their own.

Talk about an inflection point. Yikes.

---

Way too many young men / teens that i see are way too addicted to screens. Young women seem far more capable of escaping that addiction, though social media has wrecked plentyof them too.

It isn't the fault of women or a society treating boys and men unfairly. It is that we have created a society which males seem uniquely defenseless against. They need our help and we need to change things without giving in to this victimhood complex that the rights wants to foster.

---

I think more complicated than screen addiction. It is that combined with loneliness and then the rage inducing algorithms that serves up a lot of confirmation bias. So, for example, the Incels get post from OTHER incels (reinforced by them cliking on attractive "chads" and it just fuels a massively distorted picture of reality.

dajo9 said:

---

Big C said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The first 20 minutes or so of this podcast by Kara Swisher and Professor Galloway was very well done, in my opinion, about the huge underlying issue here of our children being poisoned by the internet. "Violence entreprenuers" and "conflict entrepreneurs" were good phrases used. I think anybody listening could find something to quibble with - for example, though they mentioned access to guns, I think they underplayed that aspect. You'd find your own quibbles, however. . .

I really think there has to be some bipartisan common ground here that the internet is poisoning our children and it all needs to be reigned in. Professor Galloway suggested removing Section 230 for algorithmic content. I don't pretend to know about the law or technology enough to have a specific remedy other than strongly enforcing anti-trust which I support. But whatever your remedy, don't we have some kind of bipartisan common ground that the internet is making us addicts and causing severe damage to our society and our youth, in particular?

---

I am COMPLETELY in agreement.

For me I go back to actually a "non" political horror (if anything can be non-political) - the incel fueled massacre at UCSB in 2014. I am in NO WAY justifying the killing. But it is clear that that murderer was DEEPLY screwed up by an on-line culture and feed and conflict entrepreneurs that preyed on someone with deep underlying pschosis and then essentially set him off like a human bomb that lead to 6 deaths. His rantings are terrifying.

Now imagine a different world were youtube and facebook and other internet companies have a standard of not strict liability but some effort to moderate and flag and remove. No psychic affirmation from publishing a manifesto. No live streaming. No easily connecting with other lonely men (****, were we not mostly all lonely and occasionally depressed in our 20s).

Would Meta's and googles business model have to change? Absolutely!! Would they be less profitable? Probably. I highly doubt they close and then we would get several thousand of people paid (not a great job but a job) to sit and read posts flagged by AI and then take actions. We might also get the end of anominity on the internet - not a bad thing so that people can be held liable if they egg on and encourage someone to go on a killing spree.

I realize that this will create one big huge feeding frenzy from the trial bar. I am less keen on that then many. But I know that you gotta hold companies liable if they are making a product which is unsafe. Or put it another way.....most Pintos did not explode and kill people. Most absetos did not lead to lung disease. But sometimes cars did blow up. Asbestos improperly used does kill people. Tort liability works and the world is better when we use it to bring about more responbsible behavior.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

---

Scott Galloway is great (so is Kara Swisher, author of Burn Book - A Tech Love Story). Galloway is spot on, talking about the challenges that young men are facing.

From my own experience, this became obvious when teaching at a high school in which 75% of the graduates do not go on directly to a four-year college. Most of them, instead, go to the local CC, where a number of those flunk out after a year or two.

So what do you do when you're 20 years old and your opportunities for success are now greatly limited? Many of them had harbored ambitions of being a professional athlete, a rapper, or an influencer. Very few see themselves as a plumber or electrician because that would entail actual work. They have spent a couple of years living at home and working part-time in the service industry, so they've had some pocket money, which they've spent. And now their parents are suggesting that they move out on their own.

Talk about an inflection point. Yikes.

---

Way too many young men / teens that i see are way too addicted to screens. Young women seem far more capable of escaping that addiction, though social media has wrecked plentyof them too.

It isn't the fault of women or a society treating boys and men unfairly. It is that we have created a society which males seem uniquely defenseless against. They need our help and we need to change things without giving in to this victimhood complex that the rights wants to foster.

---

School districts are run primarily by women, inner city schools have few positive male role models beyond a coach. It appears in most schools shop is gone, auto mechanics and wood working, too. Tons of students opt out of physical education, walking a lap or two, then sitting for the remainder.

Boys natural movement / energetic nature is inhibited. Old timers tell me when one kid was being picked on by a group, they'd pick the lead bully and the target, lace up gloves, and let them go at it in the ring. The target had a far better chance, it was safe, and he typically gained some confidence and respect. Then the 'knock if off' command. Today the bully gets a popsicle for 'restorative justice'? SMDH

BearlySane88 said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

DIDDYWAGGLES CAPS LOCK STUCK ALL DAY.

TIME TO CLEAN KEYBOARD.

---

Have you been calling him that before I started posting? It just fits right?

---

I think I got it from you.

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Big C said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The first 20 minutes or so of this podcast by Kara Swisher and Professor Galloway was very well done, in my opinion, about the huge underlying issue here of our children being poisoned by the internet. "Violence entreprenuers" and "conflict entrepreneurs" were good phrases used. I think anybody listening could find something to quibble with - for example, though they mentioned access to guns, I think they underplayed that aspect. You'd find your own quibbles, however. . .

I really think there has to be some bipartisan common ground here that the internet is poisoning our children and it all needs to be reigned in. Professor Galloway suggested removing Section 230 for algorithmic content. I don't pretend to know about the law or technology enough to have a specific remedy other than strongly enforcing anti-trust which I support. But whatever your remedy, don't we have some kind of bipartisan common ground that the internet is making us addicts and causing severe damage to our society and our youth, in particular?

---

I am COMPLETELY in agreement.

For me I go back to actually a "non" political horror (if anything can be non-political) - the incel fueled massacre at UCSB in 2014. I am in NO WAY justifying the killing. But it is clear that that murderer was DEEPLY screwed up by an on-line culture and feed and conflict entrepreneurs that preyed on someone with deep underlying pschosis and then essentially set him off like a human bomb that lead to 6 deaths. His rantings are terrifying.

Now imagine a different world were youtube and facebook and other internet companies have a standard of not strict liability but some effort to moderate and flag and remove. No psychic affirmation from publishing a manifesto. No live streaming. No easily connecting with other lonely men (****, were we not mostly all lonely and occasionally depressed in our 20s).

Would Meta's and googles business model have to change? Absolutely!! Would they be less profitable? Probably. I highly doubt they close and then we would get several thousand of people paid (not a great job but a job) to sit and read posts flagged by AI and then take actions. We might also get the end of anominity on the internet - not a bad thing so that people can be held liable if they egg on and encourage someone to go on a killing spree.

I realize that this will create one big huge feeding frenzy from the trial bar. I am less keen on that then many. But I know that you gotta hold companies liable if they are making a product which is unsafe. Or put it another way.....most Pintos did not explode and kill people. Most absetos did not lead to lung disease. But sometimes cars did blow up. Asbestos improperly used does kill people. Tort liability works and the world is better when we use it to bring about more responbsible behavior.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

---

Scott Galloway is great (so is Kara Swisher, author of Burn Book - A Tech Love Story). Galloway is spot on, talking about the challenges that young men are facing.

From my own experience, this became obvious when teaching at a high school in which 75% of the graduates do not go on directly to a four-year college. Most of them, instead, go to the local CC, where a number of those flunk out after a year or two.

So what do you do when you're 20 years old and your opportunities for success are now greatly limited? Many of them had harbored ambitions of being a professional athlete, a rapper, or an influencer. Very few see themselves as a plumber or electrician because that would entail actual work. They have spent a couple of years living at home and working part-time in the service industry, so they've had some pocket money, which they've spent. And now their parents are suggesting that they move out on their own.

Talk about an inflection point. Yikes.

---

Way too many young men / teens that i see are way too addicted to screens. Young women seem far more capable of escaping that addiction, though social media has wrecked plentyof them too.

It isn't the fault of women or a society treating boys and men unfairly. It is that we have created a society which males seem uniquely defenseless against. They need our help and we need to change things without giving in to this victimhood complex that the rights wants to foster.

---

The young girls that I teach are 10x more addicted to their devices and the internet than the boys are.

---

What age group?

---

Believe he said middle school before.

---

That checks out with my anecdotal experience. My daughter was 16 when she told me she was concerned with the online behavior of the 12 year old girls. It pained her to agree with me about the detriment of screen time to kids. I think girls are more likely to grow out of it at a younger age than boys. Just my anecdotal experience.

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

DIDDYWAGGLES CAPS LOCK STUCK ALL DAY.

TIME TO CLEAN KEYBOARD.

---

Have you been calling him that before I started posting? It just fits right?

---

I think I got it from you.

---

Honored

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Big C said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The first 20 minutes or so of this podcast by Kara Swisher and Professor Galloway was very well done, in my opinion, about the huge underlying issue here of our children being poisoned by the internet. "Violence entreprenuers" and "conflict entrepreneurs" were good phrases used. I think anybody listening could find something to quibble with - for example, though they mentioned access to guns, I think they underplayed that aspect. You'd find your own quibbles, however. . .

I really think there has to be some bipartisan common ground here that the internet is poisoning our children and it all needs to be reigned in. Professor Galloway suggested removing Section 230 for algorithmic content. I don't pretend to know about the law or technology enough to have a specific remedy other than strongly enforcing anti-trust which I support. But whatever your remedy, don't we have some kind of bipartisan common ground that the internet is making us addicts and causing severe damage to our society and our youth, in particular?

---

I am COMPLETELY in agreement.

For me I go back to actually a "non" political horror (if anything can be non-political) - the incel fueled massacre at UCSB in 2014. I am in NO WAY justifying the killing. But it is clear that that murderer was DEEPLY screwed up by an on-line culture and feed and conflict entrepreneurs that preyed on someone with deep underlying pschosis and then essentially set him off like a human bomb that lead to 6 deaths. His rantings are terrifying.

Now imagine a different world were youtube and facebook and other internet companies have a standard of not strict liability but some effort to moderate and flag and remove. No psychic affirmation from publishing a manifesto. No live streaming. No easily connecting with other lonely men (****, were we not mostly all lonely and occasionally depressed in our 20s).

Would Meta's and googles business model have to change? Absolutely!! Would they be less profitable? Probably. I highly doubt they close and then we would get several thousand of people paid (not a great job but a job) to sit and read posts flagged by AI and then take actions. We might also get the end of anominity on the internet - not a bad thing so that people can be held liable if they egg on and encourage someone to go on a killing spree.

I realize that this will create one big huge feeding frenzy from the trial bar. I am less keen on that then many. But I know that you gotta hold companies liable if they are making a product which is unsafe. Or put it another way.....most Pintos did not explode and kill people. Most absetos did not lead to lung disease. But sometimes cars did blow up. Asbestos improperly used does kill people. Tort liability works and the world is better when we use it to bring about more responbsible behavior.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

---

Scott Galloway is great (so is Kara Swisher, author of Burn Book - A Tech Love Story). Galloway is spot on, talking about the challenges that young men are facing.

From my own experience, this became obvious when teaching at a high school in which 75% of the graduates do not go on directly to a four-year college. Most of them, instead, go to the local CC, where a number of those flunk out after a year or two.

So what do you do when you're 20 years old and your opportunities for success are now greatly limited? Many of them had harbored ambitions of being a professional athlete, a rapper, or an influencer. Very few see themselves as a plumber or electrician because that would entail actual work. They have spent a couple of years living at home and working part-time in the service industry, so they've had some pocket money, which they've spent. And now their parents are suggesting that they move out on their own.

Talk about an inflection point. Yikes.

---

Way too many young men / teens that i see are way too addicted to screens. Young women seem far more capable of escaping that addiction, though social media has wrecked plentyof them too.

It isn't the fault of women or a society treating boys and men unfairly. It is that we have created a society which males seem uniquely defenseless against. They need our help and we need to change things without giving in to this victimhood complex that the rights wants to foster.

---

The young girls that I teach are 10x more addicted to their devices and the internet than the boys are.

---

What age group?

---

Believe he said middle school before.

---

That checks out with my anecdotal experience. My daughter was 16 when she told me she was concerned with the online behavior of the 12 year old girls. It pained her to agree with me about the detriment of screen time to kids. I think girls are more likely to grow out of it at a younger age than boys. Just my anecdotal experience.

---

You could be right, I don't argue that. In my experience teaching middle school, the girls are much more phone obsessed than the boys. The school I work at has a no phone policy during school hours, phones locked in lockers before 1st period and can be taken out again after last period. As soon as the school day ends, every single student that has a phone is on it. On average, the boys look for about a minute then put it away and walk out while the girls stand at their lockers for several minutes on their phone then walk out still using their phones.

40% of mass shootings since 2020 trans aligned?

https://www.instagram.com/p/DN_g37GCIgA/?igsh=MXh4NDJmeDFraHJqMQ==

sycasey said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Violence entreprenuer

---

Like Jimmy Kimmel?

Jimmy Kimmel LIED to his audience by claiming Charlie Kirk’s assassin is MAGA.

I’m tagging @jimmykimmel @JimmyKimmelLive so we can all demand he apologize & tell his audience the truth.

pic.twitter.com/F6INfxac6B

— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) September 17, 2025

---

This is not what Kimmel actually says. You can argue that he was implying it, but it's not what he said.

---

Renember, Maggats have reading comprehension stuck at the 6th grade level

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

sycasey said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Violence entreprenuer

---

Like Jimmy Kimmel?

Jimmy Kimmel LIED to his audience by claiming Charlie Kirk’s assassin is MAGA.

I’m tagging @jimmykimmel @JimmyKimmelLive so we can all demand he apologize & tell his audience the truth.

pic.twitter.com/F6INfxac6B

— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) September 17, 2025

---

This is not what Kimmel actually says. You can argue that he was implying it, but it's not what he said.

---

Renember, Maggats have reading comprehension stuck at the 6th grade level

---

Are you jealous of them, yourself being stuck at the 4th grade level?

---

Are you ever going to grow up?

You really have outdone yourself. Is this parody?