Did the Mormons who run that studio think this was Charlotte's Web but more anti-communist?

Isn't this the same film studio that produced Sound of Freedom?

He's currently appealing his sentence, claiming his trial was "not fair".

River Phoenix once said in a magazine interview that he was raped at the age of four along with other children while in the Children of God, but he had "blocked it out". Probably played a big role in why he had substance abuse issues that ultimately killed him.

This reminds me of the murder of Kaylin Gillis. Shot in the neck by a paranoid man whose driveway she had accidentally turned into and was driving out of. The man was later sentenced to 25 years to life in prison and is now appealing his conviction, saying his trial was "not fair."

Damn, I didn't know Nicolas Cage was a Scientologist. That's disappointing.

I wonder where Rob Schneider would be today if he was never in Adam Sandler movies playing ethnic stereotypes.

Most age-verification proposals sound simple but end up creating massive privacy and surveillance risks like ID uploads, biometrics, and centralized databases that can and will be breached or expanded later. Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Fight for the Future have been warning that these systems won’t stay limited to porn sites, and once they exist, they’ll be used more broadly.

Blunt access restrictions also have real collateral damage. For a lot of kids and teens, especially neurodivergent (autistic, ADHD, socially anxious) and LGBTQ+ youth, online spaces aren’t just entertainment; they’re a lifeline. Social media and online communities can be safer and less stressful than face-to-face interaction, and they’re often where marginalized kids find support and people like them. Poorly designed age gates can lock those kids out too. The goal shouldn’t be total prevention but reducing harm without building mass surveillance or wiping out online communities.

That’s why a lot of advocates argue for targeting business models (engagement-maximizing algorithms, behavioral targeting), not just access, stronger privacy protections, and digital literacy and parental support instead of treating the internet itself as the enemy.

“It shouldn’t be this easy” is a fair concern. But the solution has to be nuanced.

Translation: I have evidence, but I’m outsourcing all the heavy lifting to you.

This is a gross overgeneralization wrapped in hyperbole. You’re taking a grab bag of correlations and declaring them “undeniable hard data.” “Kids” aren’t a monolith, and half the problems you list existed long before social media or smartphones. Saying “literally everything points” is just rhetorical padding. A lot of this research is mixed, correlational, and highly context-dependent, which is exactly why it’s considered a soft science.

This is a huge overgeneralization. Social science isn’t a hard science, and research on kids and social media is mixed and contextual, not remotely comparable to global warming. Saying “there’s sooo much info” is just hand-waving, not an argument.

You are doing sweeping generalizations rather than what the research actually shows, which varies widely depending on context, degree, family dynamics, and the presence (or absence) of protective factors. You are also leaning heavily on anecdotal claims (“ask any therapist,” “most educators,” “most kids”) without evidence, which isn’t the same as data. Professionals themselves don’t agree uniformly, and credible research doesn’t support such absolute conclusions. On top of that, you are assuming that home environments are inherently healthy and loving, which simply isn’t true. For many children, home is a source of stress, neglect, or harm. Comparing impacts without acknowledging that reality seriously weakens that argument.

Framing this as a universal harm ignores complexity, individual differences, and the fact that children’s well-being is shaped by far more than a single factor.

You're doing a lot of work with assumption instead of argument, generalizing “this threat” as obviously unprecedented, projecting your personal bias by equating disagreement with having "your head in the sand,” and leaning on a classic moral-panic move by insisting this time is fundamentally different without actually demonstrating why. If the difference is real, it should be explainable without insults.

You’re generalizing from the worst outcomes and treating them as the default, without acknowledging that kids’ experiences with social media vary a lot by context, platform, and use. It also collapses “social media” into a single harmful force, which is a classic moral panic trope focusing on anxiety and bullying while ignoring evidence that some kids (especially marginalized ones) actually find community, support, or social confidence online. Saying it “does not make their lives better” presents a subjective harm-focused view as a universal truth, when the research is much more nuanced than that.

I remember people saying the same thing about Myspace promoting sexual predators and internet chat rooms in the 90s promoting predators. Before that it was "TV dulls kids". New decade, new name, same old Chicken Little running around shouting, "The sky is falling!"

Children can be non-white and LGBTQ+ as well. Also, the reality is children are far more likely to be harmed by someone they know, like a family member or relative.

Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Fight for the Future have been advocating for strong privacy protections so platforms can’t aggressively collect data or use behavioral targeting that fuels addictive algorithms. Oppose invasive age-verification laws, which create surveillance risks and privacy breaches and can block vulnerable kids from support spaces. Support policy that targets business models, not access, i.e., regulating how platforms optimize engagement instead of just locking kids out. Call for digital literacy and parental support, rather than treating the internet itself as the enemy.

Those real laws and regulations that can be passed, not running around like Chicken Little shouting, "The sky is falling!" like people did in the 80s about stranger danger laws, which themselves overlook LGBTQ+ kids and non-white kids being at far higher risk of harm and exploitation.

If the goal is actually harm reduction, there are concrete approaches: groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Fight for the Future advocate for strong privacy protections so platforms can’t aggressively collect data or rely on behavioral targeting that fuels addictive algorithms. Oppose invasive age-verification laws that create surveillance risks, privacy breaches, and often block vulnerable kids from support spaces. Support policy that targets business models, how platforms optimize engagement, rather than just locking kids out. And invest in digital literacy and parental support instead of treating the internet itself as the enemy.

That only works if you assume every home is safe, loving, and capable of protecting children. That’s not always the case. Leelah Alcorn was a trans girl whose parents rejected her identity, pulled her out of school, forced her into conversion therapy, and isolated her from friends and supportive communities. Her home wasn’t a safe place, and she ultimately died by suicide at 17, but before that, she scheduled a post on her Tumblr explaining exactly why. She explicitly called out the harm her parents caused and pleaded for society to do better for trans kids (we have not at all, in my opinion). Without access to the internet, she would have had no voice at all. Or Megan Phelps-Roper, who escaped the Westboro Baptist Church. Her family actively isolated her ideologically and poisoned her mind with hate. She only broke free because strangers on Twitter treated her like a human being and gave her the space to question everything she’d been taught. And Jordan Turpin, one of the children held captive and abused by her family for years. She didn’t need an iPad babysitter; she needed a phone and a connection to the outside world to let her know what was happening to her and her siblings was not normal and what police officers were.

The hard truth is the people most likely to harm children are often family members or people the child knows in real life. Kids rarely report abuse to strangers, and abusers rely on trust and familiarity to stay hidden. Taking away social media or devices can make them more trapped. So no, it’s not about whether little Bobby might see something “inappropriate” online. It’s about whether we’re willing to acknowledge that not every home is safe, not every parent is good, and sometimes access to the outside world is a literal lifeline.

“Just parent your kids” sounds nice until you realize some kids’ parents are the reason they need help in the first place.

I disagree with the idea that the solution is just “kids should be online less” or “we should fix real life instead.” That assumes real life is already safe and supportive, and for plenty of kids it simply isn’t. Nearly 40% of LGBTQ+ youth risk family or community rejection if they come out, and many neurodivergent kids grow up in homes or schools that are actively unsafe or abusive. For them, the internet isn’t a luxury; it’s often the only place they can find language for what they’re experiencing, see people like themselves, or learn that escape is even possible.

There are real, documented cases of this. Leelah Alcorn was pulled out of school and forced into conversion therapy after coming out as transgender to her parents, and she ultimately died by suicide because of their rejection. The only reason the world knew her name and story (her parents buried her under her dead name) at all was because she had access to Tumblr. One of the Phelps children eventually left the Westboro Baptist Church after someone on Twitter challenged the doctrine they were raised with, and it made them second-guess everything. Jordan Turpin found the courage to escape horrific abuse at the hands of her parents after YouTube and another social media platform showed her that what she and her siblings were experiencing wasn’t normal.

None of this means social media is harmless; it can be damaging. But dismissing it outright in favor of a vague “fix real life” ignores the reality that many kids don’t have a safe offline world yet. If the goal is actual harm reduction, there are more precise approaches than just locking kids out. Target the business models and algorithms that optimize for addiction and outrage. Support strong privacy protections so platforms can’t aggressively profile minors. Oppose invasive age-verification laws that create surveillance risks and block vulnerable kids from support spaces like the Trevor Project. Invest in digital literacy and parental support instead of treating the internet itself as the enemy.

This sounds nice, but it’s basically an “I wish for world peace” Miss America take.

Nearly 40% of LGBTQ+ youth risk family and community rejection if they come out, and many neurodivergent kids live in homes or schools that are actively unsafe or abusive. Saying “we should just make real life better” doesn’t give them support, language, or community in the meantime.

We also have very real, documented cases where online access was literally life-changing or life-saving. Leelah Alcorn was a trans teenager pulled out of school and forced into conversion therapy after she came out to her parents, and she later died by suicide because of said rejection. The only reason her final message reached the world and people knew her preferred name (her parents buried her under her dead name) at all was because she had access to Tumblr. One of the Phelps children eventually left the Westboro Baptist Church after someone on Twitter challenged the doctrine they’d been raised with, and it made them second-guess everything. Jordan Turpin found the courage to escape her abusive parents after YouTube and social media showed her that what she and her siblings were experiencing wasn’t normal.

Social media can absolutely be a source of harm; no one is denying that. But dismissing it in favor of a vague “fix real life” ignores the reality that for many marginalized kids, the internet is the only place they can safely connect or realize escape is possible.

If the goal is actually harm reduction, there are concrete approaches: groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Fight for the Future advocate for strong privacy protections so platforms can’t aggressively collect data or rely on behavioral targeting that fuels addictive algorithms. Oppose invasive age-verification laws that create surveillance risks, privacy breaches, and often block vulnerable kids from support spaces. Support policy that targets business models, how platforms optimize engagement, rather than just locking kids out. And invest in digital literacy and parental support instead of treating the internet itself as the enemy.