It’s not good regardless of the connection to sex bots. It means classrooms would be monitored to make sure teachers and kids “behave” and don’t pose any risk to the establishment by straying from the curriculum into conversations that question the status quo. And it would allow creeps to spy on kids and gather information on them.
They do not care about kids.
-Access to social media is “crucial for supporting youthful political engagement in contemporary democracy”, allowing young people to express their political views and be exposed to other people’s views, “to experiment with their political voice and to hone it through interaction with others.” (https://phys.org/news/2025-01-explores-social-media-tool-young.html)
" “We need to prosecute the perpetrators of online harm and the tech companies that allow horrible things – sextortion, image-based abuse,” [Candice Odgers] says. “It’s horrific for women and for girls – they are 80% to 90% of the victims and tech company owners and developers are 90% male, so we’ve got this fundamental problem in terms of protecting women and girls online.” " / " “The more we make it a forbidden place to spend time, the less likely they are going to tell us what’s happening in those spaces, the less likely they will be to report harms, the less likely we will be to help them…” " / " “For some people, it’s a support community. Tech isn’t really like tobacco. Its effects go in all directions.” " / "Odgers’ response to concerns about adolescents’ time and energy being wasted by addictive algorithms is that governments should be building better communities and physical spaces for children to play and learn; this could be funded, she says, “with a big old tax on tech”. " (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jul/16/psychologist-candice-odgers-kids-tech-mental-health-social-media-bans)
“For LGBTQ+ youth, foster kids, and those stuck in unsupportive home environments, [and other young people dealing with abuse/depression/alienation/isolation/etc.] social media is often the only place to find community, explore their identity, or access life-saving resources. Forcibly removing young people isolates those who need connection the most” (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/how-and-why-fight-back-against-social-media-bans)
-We should ban harmful algorithms - the ones that “are implemented, not with the goal to make us happy or healthy, but to keep us engaged and maybe sell us something” - instead of completely prevent access to platforms. (https://www.fastcompany.com/91136834/new-york-social-media-algorithm-ban)
-We need to have better moderation of harmful content, abuse, hate, harassment, etc., and have a support system to help young people deal with issues they encounter.
“Social media can foster social connections, offer support and community, and provide access to valuable information and resources that help young people gain additional emotional support…” / “Young people can take several practical steps to build resilience and maintain good mental health in the age of social media. It’s crucial to promote a balanced approach, empowering them to use these tools in ways that support their wellbeing and minimise potential harm.” / “For parents, carers and educators open communication, ongoing education, and a focus on building digital literacy are key to navigating this ever-changing landscape. It’s important to equip children and young people with the skills to navigate the digital world safely and responsibly. This includes teaching them about online safety, critical thinking skills, and how to manage their screen time and social media use.” / “Adults can model healthy coping mechanisms and positive mental health practices. This can involve demonstrating self-care, setting boundaries with technology, and talking openly about their own day to day life…” / “In simple terms, listening is golden. It’s incredibly powerful, especially for young people. In my 14+ years as a counsellor, I’ve seen how impactful it is to offer a safe space where children and young people feel truly heard and understood, without judgment. Reducing stigma is equally important, as it encourages young people to seek help without shame and view mental health fluidly. Showing that with the right support and care poor mental health can get better.” (https://mhfaengland.org/mhfa-centre/blog/Social-media-and-young-people-Understanding-the-impact-and-offering-support/)
They do not care about kids.
-Access to social media is “crucial for supporting youthful political engagement in contemporary democracy”, allowing young people to express their political views and be exposed to other people’s views, “to experiment with their political voice and to hone it through interaction with others.” (https://phys.org/news/2025-01-explores-social-media-tool-young.html)
" “We need to prosecute the perpetrators of online harm and the tech companies that allow horrible things – sextortion, image-based abuse,” [Candice Odgers] says. “It’s horrific for women and for girls – they are 80% to 90% of the victims and tech company owners and developers are 90% male, so we’ve got this fundamental problem in terms of protecting women and girls online.” " / " “The more we make it a forbidden place to spend time, the less likely they are going to tell us what’s happening in those spaces, the less likely they will be to report harms, the less likely we will be to help them…” " / " “For some people, it’s a support community. Tech isn’t really like tobacco. Its effects go in all directions.” " / "Odgers’ response to concerns about adolescents’ time and energy being wasted by addictive algorithms is that governments should be building better communities and physical spaces for children to play and learn; this could be funded, she says, “with a big old tax on tech”. " (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jul/16/psychologist-candice-odgers-kids-tech-mental-health-social-media-bans)
“For LGBTQ+ youth, foster kids, and those stuck in unsupportive home environments, [and other young people dealing with abuse/depression/alienation/isolation/etc.] social media is often the only place to find community, explore their identity, or access life-saving resources. Forcibly removing young people isolates those who need connection the most” (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/how-and-why-fight-back-against-social-media-bans)
-We should ban harmful algorithms - the ones that “are implemented, not with the goal to make us happy or healthy, but to keep us engaged and maybe sell us something” - instead of completely prevent access to platforms. (https://www.fastcompany.com/91136834/new-york-social-media-algorithm-ban)
-We need to have better moderation of harmful content, abuse, hate, harassment, etc., and have a support system to help young people deal with issues they encounter.
“Social media can foster social connections, offer support and community, and provide access to valuable information and resources that help young people gain additional emotional support…” / “Young people can take several practical steps to build resilience and maintain good mental health in the age of social media. It’s crucial to promote a balanced approach, empowering them to use these tools in ways that support their wellbeing and minimise potential harm.” / “For parents, carers and educators open communication, ongoing education, and a focus on building digital literacy are key to navigating this ever-changing landscape. It’s important to equip children and young people with the skills to navigate the digital world safely and responsibly. This includes teaching them about online safety, critical thinking skills, and how to manage their screen time and social media use.” / “Adults can model healthy coping mechanisms and positive mental health practices. This can involve demonstrating self-care, setting boundaries with technology, and talking openly about their own day to day life…” / “In simple terms, listening is golden. It’s incredibly powerful, especially for young people. In my 14+ years as a counsellor, I’ve seen how impactful it is to offer a safe space where children and young people feel truly heard and understood, without judgment. Reducing stigma is equally important, as it encourages young people to seek help without shame and view mental health fluidly. Showing that with the right support and care poor mental health can get better.” (https://mhfaengland.org/mhfa-centre/blog/Social-media-and-young-people-Understanding-the-impact-and-offering-support/)
So, same old story, different century…
“During the 1950s and 1960s, the United States had become particularly concerned about Chile. As the home of the UN’s Economic Commission for Latin America and figures like Raúl Prebisch, Chile had become the centre of developmentalist [=Western-style internal economic development, building an independent economy not subjected to exploitation by foreign institutions/corporations] thinking in Latin America. The US feared that these ideas would spread across the rest of the continent. To counter this tendency, the US government launched Project Chile in 1956. The goal was to resist developmentalism by training Chilean economics students – around 100 of them – in the principles of neoliberal theory at the University of Chicago. A decade later, the programme was expanded to include students from across the continent, and eventually led to the formation of the Center for Latin American Economic Studies at Chicago. It was ideological warfare. The idea was to train students to scorn social safety nets, trade barriers, infant industry protection, price controls, public services and many of the other policies being promoted by progressive Latin American economists at the time. […] Developmentalism received a promising boost when voters elected Salvador Allende – a thoughtful, unpretentious doctor with thick-rimmed spectacles who was popular for his progressive views. At the time, much of Chile’s population was still mired in extreme poverty, while a small elite controlled most of the country’s vast land and wealth. Allende […] established a minimum wage, reduced the price of bread, rolled out free school meals, expanded low-income housing and extended public transportation to working-class neighbourhoods. He nationalised the copper mines and capped land ownership at 80 hectares (fully compensating all private owners), ending the colonial latifundia [=vast land estates] and redistributing land to peasant farmers. And it worked. Wages rose, poverty rates declined, school enrolment reached record levels. But the United States was not happy. Allende’s nationalisation and land reform programmes appeared to threaten US economic interests; after all, US corporations had $964 million invested in Chile and were earning an average return of 17.4 per cent on it. Allende pledged full compensation for anyone who would lose their property or investments as a result, but this failed to pacify the US, which feared Allende’s popularity would trigger a broader turn to the left in Latin America. At the time, 20 per cent of total US foreign investments were tied up in Latin America, and US firms had 5,436 subsidiaries in the region, with significant profits at stake; they didn’t want to see the rise of more Allende-style governments among Chile’s neighbours. At first, the United States tried to force Allende to back off his nationalisation programme by applying non-military pressure, doing everything in their power to strangle the Chilean economy. President Richard Nixon famously ordered the CIA director, Richard Helms, to ‘make the economy scream’. The US blocked government loans to Chile and encouraged private banks to do the same. They placed a moratorium on Chilean copper imports for six months, thus depleting Chile’s foreign currency reserves. And the CIA used El Mercurio, a newspaper owned by US multinational ITT, to disseminate anti-Allende propaganda. …” (from "The Divide: Global Inequality from Conquest to Free Markets’’ by Jason Hickel)
edit: there’s also the related Aphgan textbooks https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/12/06/368452888/q-a-j-is-for-jihad
Another reason to why we should be depaving and creating sustainable organic agriculture everywhere
“The efficiency and productivity of industrial agriculture hides the costs of depletion of soils, exploitation of groundwater, erosion, and extinction of biodiversity. Industrial agriculture uses 10 times more energy than it produces. It uses 10 times more water than biodiverse farming with water-prudent crops and organic practices use. In fact, when assessed from nature’s economy, biodiverse, ecological farms have much higher productivity than large-scale, industrial, monoculture farms. The illusion of efficiency is produced by externalizing the ecological costs.” / “…a polyculture [crop diversity] system can produce 100 units of food from 5 units of inputs, whereas an industrial system requires 300 units of input to produce the same 100 units. The 295 units of wasted inputs could have provided 5,900 units of food. This is a recipe for starving people, not for feeding them. A common argument used to promote industrial agriculture is that only it and industrial breeding can maintain the increased food productivity needed for a growing population. However, since resources, not labor, are the limiting actor in food production, it is resource productivity, not labor productivity, which is the relevant measure. What is needed is more efficient resource use so that the same resources can feed more people. A 66-fold decrease of food producing capacity in the context of resources use is not an efficient strategy for using limited land, water, and biodiversity to feed the world.” (from the book “Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, And Peace” by Vandana Shiva)
We need to move away from a system that requires “funding” to operate. If we have all of the needed knowledge, resources, technology, human power, etc. - we should just do what needs to be done.
“Pfizer and its shareholders make more money from drugs that treat baldness and impotence than they would from drugs to treat diseases, such as malaria and tuberculosis, that are leading causes of death in the developing world. Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies likely have the know-how and the physical capacity to place more emphasis on developing and making drugs to fight these killer diseases. Though such drugs would do immense good for the world and could save millions of lives every year, the costs to any company that developed them would almost certainly outweigh the benefits.” (from the book “The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit Of Profit And Power” by Joel Bakan")
That’s the right direction but it needs to make sure that the wages stay the same, otherwise everything becomes a part-time job and people are forced to find an additional job to get to their original earnings.
Either way, we need Universal Basic Income
COINTELPRO never went away
European countries including Spain have sown destruction and exploitation around the world for their own benefit. It’s not surprising that marginalized people are trying to get their fair share. European countries have spread capitalism which destroys communal support systems in order to profit off of access to resources/land/cheap (or free) labor force/etc. regardless of societal/ecological consequences (“externalities”).
If Europe wants to solve the refugee/migrant problem it should help communities to rise above the system that puts a price tag on human needs and which is based on a competitive struggle of everyone for themselves and their family, while an elite gets richer and more powerful above it all.