All posts tagged "facebook"

'Dangerous': Hate-fueled activist raises alarm as Meta sets him loose on AI

Meta’s announcement earlier this month that anti-trans activist Robby Starbuck “will work collaboratively” with the company to address bias in its AI products marks another step in the social media giant’s rapid shift to the right.

Starbuck is a former music video editor who repositioned himself as a conservative influencer, best known for leveraging social media to pressure companies such as Tractor Supply Co. to abandon commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion.

Starbuck has also spread anti-LGBTQ messaging, equating trans people with pedophiles through repeated use of the term “groomer.”

“Robby Starbuck pushes a dangerous anti-LGBTQ+ agenda, spreading disinformation and denying the very existence of transgender people,” Eric Bloem, Human Rights Campaign’s vice president for workplace equality, told Raw Story.

“There’s nothing unbiased about that. Coupled with its January rollback of protections against hate speech across its platforms, this decision calls into question Meta’s commitment to keeping LGBTQ+ people and others safe online.”

Starbuck gained a seat at Meta’s table by suing the company, which owns Facebook, Instagram, Threads and WhatsApp, over false claims by its AI chatbot that he was involved in the Jan. 6 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Starbuck said in an Aug. 8 post on X that after he filed a defamation suit, “Meta reached out to me immediately, which led to many very long calls with concerned executives and engineers.”

Starbuck and Meta said in a joint statement the same day that “since engaging on these important issues with Robby, Meta has made tremendous strides to improve the accuracy of Meta AI and mitigate ideological and political bias.”

The statement also said “Meta and Robby Starbuck will work collaboratively in the coming months to find ways to address issues of ideological and political bias.”

Starbuck described the settlement “as a win for everyone,” adding that it “produces a better product for Meta” and also “allows me to deliver on multiple fronts as a voice for conservatives.”

But in a statement to Raw Story, he insisted that while he’s made no secret of his political views, he’s not out to impose his beliefs on Meta’s users.

“That would be antithetical to my beliefs about AI, which are that it’s here to stay and needs to show no bias, not my bias, not your bias, not anyone’s bias,” he said. “It needs to be a neutral, fact-driven system.”

‘I hope this is a joke’

Over the past four years, Starbuck has made a string of posts on X labeling LGBTQ people, particularly trans people and people involved in drag performances as “groomers.”

One 2023 post attacked KitchenAid’s sponsorship of trans TikTok influencer Dylan Mulvaney, saying: “KitchenAid will forever be GroomerAid in my house from this day forward.”

In another post, Starbuck called Lil Nas X, whose real name is Montero Lamar Hill, “a groomer and a predator” in response to the rapper’s 2021 video simulating a lap dance with Satan.

“I don’t hate gay people,” Starbuck posted in May 2024. “I hate behaviors that hurt kids. I want people to stop pushing LGBTQ propaganda on kids and stop transitioning kids.”

Starbuck has also openly embraced the Great Replacement theory, a set of racist talking points on immigration closely associated with white supremacist agitation and mass shootings.

Brenton Tarrant, who livestreamed a slaughter of 51 Muslims at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand in 2019, named his manifesto “The Great Replacement.”

In February 2024, Starbuck wrote on X: “You can’t call replacement theory racist when it’s literally out in the open now.

“I’m Latino and I’m telling you that the west is trying to replace existing citizens (mostly white) with migrants from 3rd world countries. It must end or the west will become third world!”

Asked about that post in the context of his new role helping Meta guard against bias in AI products, Starbuck told Raw Story: “I hope this is a joke because I’m Latino.

“Trying to associate me to white supremacy or mass shooters is as sick as it is devoid of intelligence.”

A Meta spokesperson declined to comment, other than to reference the joint statement previously issued with Starbuck.

Alejandra Carballo, a clinical instructor at Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic, told Raw Story that Meta engaging Starbuck in “any advisory capacity” was “pretty egregious.”

“It’s so incredibly far from where Meta was a few years ago, where Meta was holding stakeholder meetings with LGBTQ groups,” Carballo said.

“It fits in with their tack to the right since the election. They view anti-LGBTQ content as something they’re not only able to tolerate, but something they’re actively greenlighting.”

In January, less than two weeks before Donald Trump’s inauguration, Meta rolled out changes to eliminate third-party fact-checking and weaken policies against hate speech.

Meta’s new policy on Hateful Conduct carved out an exception for LGBTQ people, allowing allegations of mental illness, in contrast to other groups with protected characteristics.

The policy also lifted a prohibition against the anti-trans slur “t----y.”

‘Anti-trans sources’

Among 7,000 Meta users in 86 countries surveyed by the LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD, along with Ultra Violet and All Out, 72 percent reported that harmful content targeting protected groups has increased since Meta relaxed regulation of hate speech.

Ninety two percent said they felt less protected from being exposed to, or targeted by, harmful content, and 77 percent said they felt less safe expressing themselves freely.

Caraballo said Meta’s Llama chatbot stands out among its competitors “for incorporating far more anti-trans sources.”

Noting that Facebook, Meta’s predecessor, was accused of amplifying hate against the Rohingya people in Myanmar, culminating in a 2017 massacre, Caraballo said she worries that WhatsApp, a platform owned by Meta and popular in the global South, could magnify hate and instigate violence against trans people.

“I can imagine someone like Starbuck being brought in and saying trans people don’t even qualify as a group or people or they’re mentally ill,” Caraballo said.

“The implicit bias in the Llama model could be made even worse.”

At the same time, Caraballo said she saw Meta’s arrangement with Starbuck as more a function of gauging the political winds than pursuing a political agenda.

“Maximizing engagement and minimizing political liability” is the social media giant’s ultimate aim, Caraballo said.

That fits with the decision by Meta in April 2024 to hire Dustin Carmack, chief of staff to the director of national intelligence in the first Trump administration, as director of public policy for the Southern and Southeastern U.S.

Carmack, who was also a senior advisor for the presidential campaign of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, authored a chapter of Project 2025, a policy blueprint for the second Trump administration.

In his contribution to the 900-page document, Carmack accused some CIA employees of “promoting divisive ideological or cultural agendas,” and said the new CIA director — who turned out to be John Ratcliffe, his old boss as Director of National Intelligence — “should direct resources from any activities that promote unnecessary and distracting social engineering.”

In July, Meta promoted Carmack to a new job in Washington: director of public policy for the executive branch.

'Take them out': Secret Service probes teacher over threats to MAGA fans and Trump cronies

The U.S. Secret Service is investigating a high school English teacher who called on them to "take out every single person who supports" President Donald Trump, according to the Bangor Daily News.

JoAnna St. Germain, of Waterville, Maine, posted to Facebook this week that the Secret Service “has the perfect opportunity, if they choose to step up and take it. Coordinate. Take out every single person who supports Trump’s illegal, immoral, unconstitutional acts.”

It wasn't clear whether St. Germain was calling for the assassination of Trump.

She claimed she was “not talking about assassinating a president,” before writing, “If I had the skill set required, I would take them out myself."

ALSO READ: 'Never so scared': Furious pastor berates cops after witnessing tasing of MTG constituent

On Wednesday, St. Germain "appeared to retract her initial statement, saying she didn’t mean that all Republicans should die," the paper reported.

In another Facebook post, she wrote, “I meant that those in the room with Trump, who are permitting and approving his egregious actions, need to be held accountable." She later wrote, “I’m not sorry. I’m not backtracking. I said what I said and I meant it.”

Local police responded to parental concerns, saying, “Rest assured that we have collaborated with our partners in federal law enforcement and at the school to ensure the safety of everyone in the community, especially our young people."

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security told the Bangor Daily News that the Secret Service is aware of St. Germain’s posts, but wouldn't comment further.

Despite authorities' awareness of her violent viewpoint, St. Germain posted again, this time clarifying that she had President Trump in her sights.

“Apparently, I have made the news. People are quite angry with me for stating openly that Trump and his cronies need to die,” she wrote Wednesday afternoon.

Read the Bangor Daily News story here.

'Where's the line?' MSNBC's Steele hammers Zuckerberg for allowing attacks on young girls

MSNBC's Michael Steele raged at Meta's Mark Zuckerberg Sunday for doing away with fact-checking and allowing "suggestive comments" beneath the pictures of "young girls" on its platforms, among other questionable practices.

Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp, announced last week that it would no longer fact check posts, essentially opening the floodgates for bigoted and inappropriate content. Zuckerberg's change in tactics is seen as a nod to President-elect Donald Trump and the GOP who claimed Meta fact-checking was biased against conservative content.

Steele, Symone Sanders-Townsend, and Alicia Menendez all expressed outrage as they read "permissible" posts from a leaked Meta training manual published by The Intercept.

"Oh, my God! This is for the bigots and the people that hate other people!" Sanders-Townsend exclaimed. "This is not for most Americans. This is for the...internet bullies. And I just I don't unders — that is not about fairness...Why do the bigots need a platform?"

ALSO READ: Trump intel advisor Devin Nunes still dismisses Russian election meddling as a 'hoax'

Alicia Menendez interjected, "I also thought it was interesting — Did you see this, Michael — that in their statement they said, 'Well, if they can say things on the floor of Congress, they should be able to say —' well, I wouldn't use the floor of Congress right now as my metric!"

"So, are we mimicking the Congress or is the Congress mimicking us?" Steele asked. "And, so, where is the line in which we, as a society, say that, you know, putting suggestive comments beneath the picture of a young girl under the age of 17 is okay? is that what we're saying now, Mark Zuckerberg? You can do that? You're okay with posting pictures of young girls with suggestive language beneath their picture? Because that's now permissible on your platform. So, that's what this is about. And, so, when parents get upset and just put out by this, where do they go? And when and bad things happen because of what you're platforming. You're going to sit back and go, 'Well, we're not responsible. Section 203, we're protected. We don't have, we have no responsibility here. It's just a platform.' Bull! It's more than that and you know it."

Watch the clip below via MSNBC or at the link..

Meghan McCain called out for blocking trolls — after praising Trump era of anti-censorship

Meghan McCain was called out on X for limiting "who can reply" to her tweets after posting praise for the Trump era of "anti-censorship."

Users on the social media site criticized the conservative pundit's "hypocrisy," with musician Rourke writing, "So much for 'radically free speech'. It took only four minutes to show ur hypocrisy."

"Meghan McCain: YAY RADICAL FREE SPEECH! Also Meghan McCain: shuts off replies," chimed in @emisback717 on X.

"Meghan McCain is such a big proponent of free speech, than why does she ONLY let blue check accounts post replies to her. She’s a fraud," added @daynahmk on X.

The controversy began Tuesday afternoon when McCain admonished trolls who she said were "mad" she didn't have cancer.

"I've decided to limit who can reply to my tweets to verified accounts because quite frankly too many of you are emotionally unstable and have been messaging me you're mad my breast mass wasn't cancerous because I criticized Meghan Markle's cooking teaser. New year, new rules," she wrote.

An hour earlier, following President-elect Donald Trump's rambling Palm Beach news conference, McCain wrote, "One of the things I am really going to enjoy about this new Trump era is it is actually, authentically going to be a time of radical free speech and anti censorship. All the former gate keepers and overlords of what can and cannot be said are finally neutered of their power."

X is owned by Trump ally and Department of Government Efficiency appointee Elon Musk.

ALSO READ: Trump intel advisor Devin Nunes still dismisses Russian election meddling as a 'hoax'

Earlier Tuesday, Trump praised Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg for announcing that Facebook would stop its practice of fact-checking posts, a move seen as a nod to the incoming Trump administration. Conservatives have long criticized Facebook for "censoring" posts, though Meta is a private company, not a government-run entity.

Meta owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

"They have come a long way," Trump said of the social media company.

"Trump then replied 'probably' when asked if the move is CEO Mark Zuckerberg directly responding to threats the president-elect has made against him," The Hill reported.

Meta's change in policy is a far cry from four years ago when the company shut down Trump's account for inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol riots. Facebook later reinstated Trump, who went on to found his own social media platform, TruthSocial.

Meghan McCain has criticized Trump in the past for making disparaging remarks about her late father, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

'How do you feel about facts?' CNN's John Berman puts Trump 'foot soldier' on spot

A prominent voice in the Republican Party, outgoing New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R), was put on the spot Tuesday when CNN's John Berman straight-out asked him, "How do you feel about facts?"

"I want to ask you a Meta question, no pun intended here," Berman said on CNN New Central. "How do you feel about facts?"

Sununu was taken aback, answering, "How do I? I'm pro facts!" he exclaimed. "I mean, yeah, look, I'm an engineer. I'm a numbers guy."

Sununu became what The New York Times called a "loyal foot soldier" for Donald Trump — who has been known for bending the truth — after South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) dropped out of the primary last year.

Berman continued, "So, some things are objectively true. Other things are objectively not true."

"Last time I checked, yes," Sununu quipped.

"Okay, so the reason I'm asking is because Meta, the parent company to Facebook, announced this morning that it's getting rid of its fact checkers."

"Great! Good! Nobody believes them! In their in their own words, there was severe political bias there. If there was a conservative group that had fact checkers, I'd say there's political bias. If there's a liberal group, if there's social media groups, if there's — there's always going to be a bias in what you do. I think in the social media world, the political bias got very, very heavy. They acknowledge it. They're going to make a change," Sununu said.

ALSO READ: Trump intel advisor Devin Nunes still dismisses Russian election meddling as a 'hoax'

"Can you get better fact checkers then, rather than getting rid of them altogether?" Berman pressed.

"How about not worry about fact checking? How about —

"Well, you just told me that there are things that are objectively true and objectively not true!"

"There are. But is that the role, is social media's role, to prove to you what is true and what is not, or is its role to be an open platform for discussion, debate, opinion?" Sununu asked. "You know, whether folks believe something or not believe something? I would say that's really where social — communication — that's the more of the role of social media, not to be the police of what's true."

After serving four terms as New Hampshire's governor, Sununu is set to leave office by the end of the week. He claimed he's done with government and planned to work in the public sector.

Watch the clip below via CNN.

Inside the Democratic National Convention corporate interest moneyfest

CHICAGO — In ballrooms, barrooms and backrooms this week, the business of big business is getting done with Democrats out of public view.

Yes, Bernie Sanders on Tuesday railed before Democratic National Convention delegates about how “millionaires and billionaires” should “not be able to buy elections.” And sure, curtailing “the corrupting influence of money in politics” is a plank in the 2024 Democratic Party platform.

But most Democrats in Chicago are ignoring the socialist senator and stepping over and around that party plank while pursuing cash that corporations and moneyed special interests are all too keen to contribute.

Foremost, there are those who are asking for money.

Take the California Democratic Party, the home state party committee of 2024 presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

For $250,000, a corporation, union, trade association or individual can this week claim a “California gold” sponsorship that entitles the giver to a bevy of benefits, according to a brochure obtained by Raw Story.

Among the perks: membership on the party’s finance committee, "private VIP receptions," eligibility for “special” convention credentials, “priority” lodging and the “opportunity to include items in California delegates' tote bags." One's corporate or organization logo will be “displayed at the California Bash” — a tony party on Aug. 21 at the House of Blues Chicago — and “all four California Delegate breakfasts.”

The Texas Democratic Party similarly offers a $50,000 “Longhorn” package.

In part, it buys a taker “recognition as a title sponsor at our delegation breakfasts & Texas reception,” “one suite in our room block (4 nights)” and “4 guest passes for all Texas delegation breakfasts” and “2 VIP passes to the States Party with access to the Foundation Lounge,” according to a party document appropriately titled “sponsorship opportunities for the 2024 Texas Delegation.”

The Maryland Democratic Party features a $75,000 “Chairman’s Sponsor” package.

For that price, you’ll get “recognition in the Maryland Delegation Hotel and at all 14 Maryland Celebration events” along with a host of other items and honorifics.

And the National Democratic Institute, a nonprofit organization led by former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), is promoting its “exclusive landmark event space” to “network with global political leaders” and “400 high-level guests” to “build relationships as they address pressing challenges to democracy,” according to an invitation obtained by Raw Story.

Sponsorships of the National Democratic Institute’s week of Democratic National Convention-themed events in Chicago begin at $10,000 and top out at $250,000 — with a top-tier sponsorship landing the “presenting sponsor” a veritable public relations campaign, ranging from “inclusion of corporate materials at events and in registration packets” to an “invitation to meet Senator Tom Daschle and other high-level leaders.”

Sponsors from past Democratic National Conventions include Facebook, Visa, AT&T, oil company Chevron and pharmaceutical company Amgen, according to the invitation.

Raw Story reviews of more than 20 other convention-themed invitations from political committees, political consulting firms, state delegations and politically focused nonprofits yielded similar offers.

Sunlight dims

Democrats don’t want to talk about this lesser-known side of their national convention, where all manner of special interests have a standing invitation to shmooze with party brass and tour the party’s inner sanctum — for a price.

Officials for the California, Texas and Maryland Democratic committees did not respond to multiple emails and phone calls from Raw Story. Nor did officials from the Democratic National Committee.

Why such secrecy?

Accepting big money is inconvenient for Democrats, who have rhetorically railed against the era of unlimited election spending by corporate, union and certain nonprofit interests, which the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission animated.

But just as it does for Republicans, big money keeps Democratic committees competitive in the age of permanent political campaigns. It fuels politicians’ ambitions and helps keep them in power.

Where exactly this Democratic National Convention-adjacent money goes after everyone leaves Chicago often depends on the individual campaign finance laws of each state. It might end up in a federal, or state or ballot measure account. Maybe all of the above. Or somewhere else entirely.

Some of this money will be publicly disclosed, eventually, just as the Democratic National Convention and its host committee must disclose its funders, eventually.

However, some of the money — particularly if it comes from a politically active nonprofit group that may legally avoid disclosing its own funding sources — will remain unknown to average Americans, just beyond the “dark money” realm’s event horizon.

Since the high court’s seminal decision, Democratic leaders have often argued that they cannot “unilaterally disarm” and simply let Republicans bludgeon them with fat stacks of corporate cash. So they’d play the game in hopes of ending the game.

Advocates for good government are decidedly unimpressed at what they consider pay-to-play political ickiness.

"Sponsorship and events funded by corporate interests during both major political party conventions is yet another way that industry is able to peddle influence and overshadow the voices of real people,” said Donald K. Sherman, executive director and chief counsel of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

“Until Congress actually attempts to do something about this, the conventions will remain the same,” said Jessica Tillipman, associate dean for government procurement law at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. “I don't see either party willing to step up and take measures to reduce influence peddling if they are not required to do so.

The givers

At most, Democrats’ approach to political money is of academic concern to the givers who, for a relative pittance, snag something far more precious than their five- or six-figure contribution: access.

Proximity to power, while never a panacea, is nevertheless a ticket to emails answered, phone calls returned, meetings scheduled and honored. It’s a tool for favorable regulations and prod for advantageous legislation. In a pinch, it’s a weapon against naysayers.

Invest a little now, get a lot later. Make friends, influence people, plan for a rainy day when the government seems more against you than with you.

Raw Story contacted more than 40 corporations and trade associations that, according to federal data compiled by nonpartisan research organization OpenSecrets, spent at least $1 million on federal-level lobbying efforts last year or are on pace to do so this year,

The vast majority of them did not respond to multiple requests for comment on whether they, in any form or fashion, supported the 2024 Republican or Democratic national conventions, or sponsored any political committee, state delegation or policy organization participating in convention festivities.

Chicagoland-based corporate giants McDonald’s Corporation and Allstate Insurance Company had nothing to say. Nor did Microsoft, Boeing, Pfizer, Apple, Comcast, Visa, Verizon, CVS, UPS, FedEx, Honeywell, The Walt Disney Company, Salesforce, TikTok, defense contractor RTX and Facebook parent Meta.

ExxonMobil co-sponsored a Democratic National Convention side event staged by Punchbowl News — one disrupted by climate activists. (The oil giant did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

“We don’t have any comment,” said Megan Ketterer, a spokesperson for AT&T, whose logo could be found on kiosks, credential lanyards and signage in and around the Democratic National Convention.

ALSO READ: ‘Absolutely essential’: Son of Oath Keeper Stewart Rhodes is all in for Kamala Harris

Lockheed Martin responded to a Raw Story inquiry that included several detailed questions about the defense contractor’s participation in the 2024 convention.

Sort of.

A company spokesman, who declined to be named, first had questions for Raw Story: How many companies and special interest groups did Raw Story contact? Which ones? Did they respond?

In the end, Lockheed declined to answer most of Raw Story’s questions and emailed a statement: “We plan to attend both the Democratic and Republican conventions as part of our long-standing approach of non-partisan political engagement in support of our business interests.”

Raw Story persisted: “Are you able to offer any specifics on how you plan to support your business interests at the conventions? How much money does Lockheed Martin plan to spend between the two 2024 national party conventions?”

“We don’t have anything else to share,” the spokesman replied.

Chicago-based United Airlines — namesake of the United Center, where the Democratic National Convention is being conducted — said in a statement that the company “supported both the Milwaukee and Chicago Host committees” and increased the number of flights between Washington, D.C., and the two 2024 national convention cities.

Asked for additional details, United demurred: “We won’t have any further information to share.”

Similarly, a Google spokesperson, who declined to be named, noted that the company did not donate to either the Democratic or Republican convention committee, but helped “both the Republican and Democratic committees livestream their conventions on YouTube – like we have in previous elections.”

The Google spokesperson declined to comment on support Google did or did not offer state delegations, political committees and the like in conjunction with the Democratic or Republican national conventions.

A Walmart spokesperson said the company didn’t donate to either the Democratic or Republican convention funds but declined to comment further.

Some of the nation’s top lobbying forces were a bit more forthcoming.

“GM will sponsor the Democratic National Convention,” General Motors spokesperson Liz Winter confirmed. “We have supported both conventions for many years and aim to provide equivalent support to both the RNC and DNC. Through continuous bipartisan engagement with organizations like the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee, we have an opportunity to build an understanding of the issues important to our industry, our people and the communities we support.”

She added: “Our presence at the conventions does not represent an endorsement of a candidate.”

A few said they simply sat the 2024 national political conventions out.

Wells Fargo “did not contribute to either convention,” bank spokesman Robert Sumner said, adding, “no events, either.”

“We have not contributed for activities at the political conventions,” said Brian Dietz, spokesperson for trade group NCTA – The Internet & Television Association.

The National Federation of Independent Business has “not contributed any money / sponsorships or in-kind contributions to either the RNC or DNC conventions,” spokesperson Jon Thompson wrote in an email.

But the party never ends

When the Democratic National Convention ends Thursday night, and the final Democratic revelers stagger back to their downtown Chicago hotel rooms, there will have been hundreds of individual events and opportunities for wealthy special interests to leave their mark.

To take one: Invariant, a government relations and communications firm that lists Home Depot, H&R Block, Toyota, Marriott International and Cigna among its clients, hosted an “exclusive brat brunch” on Tuesday attended by “media personalities, influencers, administration honchos, Members of Congress, campaign staff diehards, and your friends at Invariant," according to an invitation shared with Raw Story.

Among those personally invited: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), per an invitation.

It’s unclear whether the congresswoman attended. But as Politico would report afterward, a roster of other federal lawmakers sure did, mingling with lobbyists and activists and lots of folks with political agendas.

Invariant did not return requests for comment. But based on a question it poses on its website to potential clients, the event appeared to accomplish the firm’s mission.

“There are only two questions when it comes to lobbying,” Invariant posits. “Do you want to find Washington, or do you want Washington to find you?”

What the ‘Kids Guide to President Trump’ does not tell your children

To understand what’s inside the Kids Guide to Donald Trump, 2024 Edition — a new, nationally marketed booklet aimed at pre-teens — one must first appreciate what isn’t.

The guide makes no mention of Trump’s 88 felony charges across four separate criminal cases.

Nor does it devote a word to recent civil court judgments that found Trump liable for sexual abuse, defamation and business fraud, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in fines.

Trump’s effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election?

The Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol?

No and no.

Color yourself equally disappointed if you expected the Kids Guide to Donald Trump, 2024 Edition, would dedicate even a drop of ink to Trump’s “Access Hollywood” tape, pardoning of political patrons, two impeachments, tryst with a porn star or any one of the 30,573 presidential lies or misleading claims Washington Post fact checkers chronicled.

But the Kids Guide to Donald Trump, 2024 Edition, nevertheless represents itself to prospective readers as a beacon of accuracy in a nation awash with anti-Trump falsehoods — particularly to consumers of cable television, where its ads relentlessly run.

It’s “more important than ever to teach your kids the truth,” declares Kids Guide “co-founder” and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in one of the many television commercials promoting this and other similar booklets. “It’s why my team created the Kids Guide to Donald Trump. It teaches kids all about his accomplishments as president, and his vision for America in 2024. And right now, you can get it for free.”

So what does the Kids Guide to Donald Trump, 2024 Edition, actually say?

Mostly, it’s a sizzle reel of Trump’s purported accomplishments, presented free of skepticism or critique, according to a copy read by Raw Story.

It lauds Trump for lowering taxes, reducing corporate regulations, creating the U.S. Space Force, fighting terrorism, supporting Israel, engaging North Korea, battling “the culture of political correctness” and restoring “the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution.”

Two pages in the Kids Guide to President Trump, 2024 Edition, that laud the former president. (Dave Levinthal / Raw Story)

“President Trump’s policies had a positive impact on America,” the Kids Guide to Donald Trump, 2024 Edition, declares.

It likewise warns: “Unfavorable and inaccurate news coverage about candidate Trump was common during the presidential campaign, but what happened next shocked many of America’s people. The Trump campaign was illegally spied on, and claims were made that Donald Trump was helped into office by Russian interference.”

And for the company behind the Kids Guide to Donald Trump, 2024 Edition, there’s much money to be made.

Behind the ‘Kids Guide’ franchise

The operation behind the Kids Guide to President Trump, 2024 Edition, traces back to a Boca Raton, Fla.-based company called eSpired.

Founded in 2021, according to Delaware Secretary of State corporate records, eSpired LLC is itself connected to a web of other existing or defunct companies — Sage Scholars, EverBright, Learn Our History LLC among them — that market dozens of booklets, videos and other “educational” products with a decidedly red-tinted sheen.

The Kids Guide to Fighting Indoctrination, for example, is basically a guide to fighting left-wing “indoctrination,” specifically, as demonstrated in a TV ad featuring uncomplimentary images of pro-Palestinian protesters.

The Kids Guide to the Truth About Climate Change is imbued with climate change denial and downplay. It lambastes China and advocates for continued fossil fuel use. “So much of climate change science is uncertain,” it reads.

The Kids Guide to Why Capitalism Rocks heralds capitalism as “maybe the best idea ever.”

Huckabee is an omnipresent force behind the company, serving both as its pitchman and business partner.

A webpage with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee pitching the Kids Guide to President Trump, 2024 Edition. (thekidsguide.com)

Florida Division of Corporations records obtained by Raw Story show that Learn Our History LLC, also of Boca Raton, Fla. — a company Huckabee helped found years ago — serves as the registered agent for eSpired LLC.

Investor Bradley Saft is listed on incorporation documents for both Learn our History LLC and eSpired LLC.

In 2017, Huckabee interviewed Saft on a show he hosted on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. It served as a de facto infomercial for material published by the forerunner to eSpired, some of which is today available through eSpired.

Not all consumers of this material have been pleased with their eSpired interactions.

Fine print on eSpired’s website also spells out how the company, while conservative in its leanings, uses customers’ personal data quite liberally.

A 2021 Daily Beast article wrote of some customers receiving “surprising, recurring monthly bills” from The Kids Guide and warned of the “scamming” of parents.

The Better Business Bureau’s rating page for eSpired LLC, meanwhile, is a hot mess.

Espired’s customer review rating is 1.29 out of five stars, its Better Business Bureau accreditation is listed as “suspended” and customer comments are peppered with words such as “total scam,” “swindled” and “farce.”

“My grand daughter [sic] does not get to spend very much time online so we have paid over 300$ for a little history pamphlet,” a woman named “Renee Y” wrote in January on the Better Business Bureau website.

“Our terms and conditions clearly state that the customer would continue to receive shipments monthly that would be charged to the credit or debit card that we have on file,” eSpired responded, before agreeing to process “a refund for charges in the last 90 days.”

Criticism has hardly given eSpired pause.

In addition to cable news advertisements, the “Kids Guide” brand is a frequent advertiser on Facebook and Instagram, having spent at least $4.3 million on various Kids Guide ads from mid-2018 through July 4, 2024, according to a Raw Story review of social issue, election and political advertising data provided by Meta, the social media platform’s parent company.

“Your parents and grandparents built this country. Now the radicals are one step closer to stealing it from your kids. Don’t let them. Help your kids learn how President Trump is the right choice in 2024 with this free guide,” reads one such ad most heavily targeting people in the 35-to-44-year-old age bracket, according to Meta ad data, which estimated eSpired spent $5,000 to $6,000 and garnered 70,000 to 80,000 impressions.

“What do you think about the verdict? Your kids deserve to know the truth. Get the free Kids Guide to President Trump,” read another Facebook/Instagram ad, distributed after a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of business fraud related to his pre-2016 election “hush money” payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels.

The ad, which ran in May and June and cost another $5,000 to $6,000 to earn 80,000 to 90,000 impressions, most frequently targeted people in the 65+ demographic, according to Meta ad data.

As of this week, eSpired had several active Facebook and Instagram ad campaigns in the field urging users to get “Kids Guide” booklets and “give your kids the patriotic lessons they aren’t getting in school.”

Representatives for eSpired did not respond to Raw Story’s several requests for comment.

On its website, eSpired says of itself: “Every day, we’re busy bringing new and exciting content to help families round out their children’s education. After our first decade, we remain true to our original goal—to provide fun and entertaining educational content that can be enjoyed and accessed at home, online or anywhere.”

Trump and Taylor Swift?

As the 2024 presidential election hits its general election stride, with Trump enjoying a slight lead over President Joe Biden in many national and swing state polls, The Kids Guide marketing machine continues to produce more and more new titles and offerings, some more hyperpartisan and ideological than others.

For example, there’s the perfectly practical Kids Guide to Fixing Stuff, which dispenses tips on how to use a wrench, paint a wall and bit a drill.

The Kids Guide to Achieving Your Goals is replete with boilerplate encouragement to “visualize your goals!” and “dream big, start small!”

The Kids Guide to the Coronavirus is destined to surprise many center-left parents with its generally pro-vaccine, pro-mask pronouncements — and utter lack of conspiracy theories and snake oil treatments. Page 12 helps explain why: It indicates eSpired published the booklet at a time early in the pandemic when Trump was still touting and taking credit for “Operation Warp Speed,” the governmental effort to develop an effective vaccine against COVID-19.

Even the Kids Guide to the Presidential Election is a (mostly) straightforward, fair-minded digest of how presidential elections are conducted, replete with facts about past elections and free of contemporary Biden vs. Trump commentary.

And it’s easy to see how a well-meaning grandmother might order her granddaughter the “Kids Guide to Taylor Swift” — an inoffensive mini-biography of the omnipresent pop star available through FreeTaylorGuide.com.

But once someone orders one of these “free” guides and surrenders their name, address and email to eSpired in exchange for a paperback pamphlet, prepare for the company to incessantly peddle its products to you.

You’ll be asked to enroll in “The 1776 Kids Club,” where you’ll receive new Kids Guide booklets each month for “$21.90 with free shipping.” ESpired’s standing library includes unabashedly Trump-y fare such as the “The Kids Guide to the Truth About Climate Change,” “The Kids Guide to Why Capitalism Rocks” and “The Kids Guide to Fighting Socialism.”

You’ll also receive the “latest issue of EverBright Kids Magazine & Activity Book for just $7.95.”

You’ll likewise be inveigled to order (for a price) any of many other booklet and video add-ons about the Bible, American history and personal finances. (One video, “Great Again: Restoring Faith in America,” features a cartoon Trump appearing to take the oath of office from Abraham Lincoln and — maybe? — George Washington. The video graphics are comically janky and make 1980s-era computer animation seem advanced.)

And if you ask for more information about the Kids Guide to President Trump, 2024 Edition, but don’t follow through on ordering, eSpired will email you an offer to purchase the guide “for only $9.95, with no subscription required and nothing more to buy!”

Two pages in the Kids Guide to President Trump, 2024 Edition, that laud the former president. (Dave Levinthal / Raw Story)

People who sign up and obtain online access to the entire “Kids Guide” library also receive add-ons such as a parent guide to the Kids Guide to Donald Trump, which includes questions with which parents may quiz their children to help them better understand “Donald Trump’s love of free speech and his warnings against tyranny.”

Among the questions and their listed answers:

“When Trump became President, he achieved the promises he made to the American people.” (True)
“Trump failed to do anything positive for Israel or the Middle East.” (False)
“President Trump worked to keep America’s borders safe.” (True)
“President Trump acted quickly when the Coronavirus reached America.” (True)

Illegal political ads?

Some of the “Kids Guide” television commercials resemble, in tone and tenor, political campaign ads.

“The liberal media and courts are desperate to stop President Trump,” the narrator of one such ad reads and ominous music plays while cartoon jail bars slam together over Trump’s mugshot from Fulton County, Ga.

“But he’s poised to win back the White House!” the narrator quickly continues as the music turns bright.

Could these commercials be considered campaign ads?

Legally speaking, almost certainly not.

A major reason why can be found in the text of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.

This case is today most closely associated with the rise of super PACs and allowing corporations, unions and special interests to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates.

But the case fundamentally concerns the intersection of free speech rights and campaign finance regulations: The High Court ruling that an anti-Hillary Clinton movie that nonprofit conservative advocacy group Citizens United released during Clinton’s 2008 bid is not a campaign commercial, and therefore, not subject to federal campaign finance disclosure rules and spending limitations.

And if you’re wondering if there’s a Kids Guide to Joe Biden, why yes, there is.

But in contrast to the Kids Guide to Donald Trump, 2024 Edition, you’ll find no gauzy assessments of his presidency or cheerleading for a second Biden term. Instead, it largely contains boilerplate biographical information and policy contrasts with Trump that cast the former president in a much more positive light than the current.

The Kids Guide to Joe Biden also is not available to people who subscribe to eSpired’s “Kids Guide” library.

Not that this should surprise.

“This essential series will counteract the liberal bias your kids are hearing every day in their classrooms and in the media, and will give them the tools to think for themselves,” Huckabee says in a recent “Kids Guide” promotion.

Meta now has an AI chatbot: Prepare for more AI-powered social media

When you use Facebook Messenger these days, a new prompt greets you with this come-on: "Ask Meta AI anything."

You may have opened the app to send a text to a pal, but Meta's new artificial-intelligence-powered chatbot is tempting you with encyclopedic knowledge that's just a few keystrokes away.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, has planted its home-grown chatbot on its WhatsApp and Instagram services.

Now, billions of internet users can open one of these free social media platforms and draw on Meta AI's services as a dictionary, guidebook, counselor or illustrator, among many other tasks.

Hypocrisy alert: Senators who scorched Mark Zuckerberg love Meta money

Last week, senators put the CEOs of five social media giants each in the hot seat over accusations of their platforms’ negligence toward the sexual exploitation and online safety of children.

The hottest seat of all at a multi-hour Senate Judiciary Committee hearing belonged to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who a senator asked to stand up and publicly apologize to victims and parents in attendance holding photos of their children they say were sexually abused, bullied or committed self harm — many dying by suicide — related to exploitation on social media platforms.

“Mr. Zuckerberg, you and the companies before us, I know you don’t mean it to be so, but you have blood on your hands,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the committee’s ranking Republican. “You have a product that’s killing people.”

ALSO READ: Senators extend their streak of never punishing other senators

“With the touch of your finger that smartphone that can entertain and inform you can become a back alley where the lives of your children are damaged and destroyed,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“You, as an industry, realize this is an existential threat to you all if we don't get it right?” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said. “We can regulate you out of business if we wanted to.”

“There is literally no plausible justification, no way of defending this,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) said.

Yet, Graham, Durbin, Lee and Tillis are among more than a dozen senators who grilled Zuckerberg and his tech peers but also took donations from Meta’s political action committee, company executives, lobbyists, or a combination of all three, totaling more than $120,000 combined since 2017, according to a Raw Story analysis of federal campaign records.

Who took donations from Meta?

Raw Story reached out to the offices for 15 senators who spoke at the hearing and received donations from political action committees or leaders at Meta and other social media companies represented at the hearing, including TikTok, Snap, X (formerly Twitter) and Discord.

Raw Story asked: Would the senators return donations from these social media companies or refuse future donations?

Only three responded to Raw Story’s requests for comment.

Between late 2019 and mid-2023, Graham’s campaign committee, Team Graham, received at least $15,800 from the PAC and lobbyists for Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, according to Raw Story’s review of records from the Federal Election Commission.

After a Nov. 7 Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law hearing with a Facebook whistleblower, Graham said he would refund the money his campaign received from Meta companies and other social media platforms, NTD reported.

Team Graham donated $16,000 and his Fund for America’s Future PAC donated $2,500 to the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, said Kevin Bishop, a spokesperson for Graham.

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation confirmed it received Graham’s committed gift, which helped bring survivors to the hearing and “will continue to be used to bring survivors to meet with legislators across the aisle so survivors have a voice to educate policymakers on the impact of sexual exploitation and the scale at which it occurs online,” said Dawn Hawkins, CEO of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, via an emailed statement.

“We aren't aware of any similar pledges made by other legislators,” Hawkins said, noting that the center supports bipartisan legislation including the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act (EARN IT) Act and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA).

“Graham made a pledge and he fulfilled that pledge,” Bishop told Raw Story via email.

Hawkins said Big Tech companies “know the harm they are facilitating” and “continue to shirk responsibility and roll out piecemeal and ineffective solutions,” particularly in relation to vulnerable populations such as those who identify as LGBTQ+.

“These companies continue to put the burden on overwhelmed parents despite having flawed and ineffective parental controls, and they ignore children without the privilege of involved, tech-savvy caregivers, when high-level corporate actions could better protect all children,” Hawkins said.

The social media companies don’t spend enough on child safety protocols either, Hawkins said, calling the CEOs unprepared for the hearing. To them, “investment in child safety is not a priority, but an afterthought,” she said.

Tillis’ campaign committee received at least $27,200 from current and former registered lobbyists for Facebook and Meta Platforms Inc PAC (previously known as Facebook Inc. PAC), between June 2017 and March 2023, FEC records indicate.

Lee’s campaign received at least $16,800 combined in donations from Meta (and formerly Facebook) PAC and a former Facebook lobbyist, as well as from an executive for ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, between September 2019 and June 2022. The vast majority of the funds were Meta-related, and one $2,500 check from Facebook PAC went uncashed, according to FEC records.

The campaign for Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) took in at least $17,100 combined from Meta and (formerly Facebook) PAC and Sheryl Sandberg, former COO for Meta, between March 2020 and December 2023, per federal records.

Durbin’s campaign received at least $11,300 between June 2019 and December 2021 from the Facebook and Meta PAC, and Sandberg, according to Raw Story analysis of FEC data.

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) received at least $7,900 from Facebook PAC and Sandberg between March 2017 and September 2018, per FEC records.

In 2017 and 2018, Facebook PAC and Sandberg combined to donate at least $7,700 to Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), according to FEC records. Other Facebook lawyers donated to her campaign.

"Senator Klobuchar has long been the leading advocate for bipartisan competition and safety legislation that the tech companies have opposed. Any question of her integrity when it comes to tech can be refuted by the hundreds of millions of dollars they have spent on TV and in lobbying against her and her legislation,” said Ben Hill, a spokesperson for Klobuchar’s campaign, in a statement to Raw Story.

ALSO READ: Kevin McCarthy just got jacked

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) did not receive donations for his campaign from the PACs for the social media companies, but hundreds of individual employees from Snap, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and ByteDance donated to his campaign, according to FEC records.

In particular, Isaac Bess, an executive at ByteDance, and Jerry Hunter, an executive at Snapchat, each donated $1,000 to him in January 2021. Michael Lynton, Snapchat chairman, donated nearly $2,000 in December 2020 to his campaign committee.

Other individuals who identified themselves in leadership positions such as directors, business leads and attorneys donated more than $35,000 combined to the Jon Ossoff for Senate committee.

“Sen. Ossoff does not accept contributions from corporations, corporate PACs or federal lobbyists,” said Jake Best, an Ossoff campaign spokesperson, who did not address Ossoff's campaign accepting money from individual social media executives.

ALSO READ: This Capitol Police officer has a new mission

The campaign for Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) received at least $4,500 from Facebook PAC in 2017 and 2018, per federal campaign records.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) did not receive PAC donations from the social media companies, but his campaign took in at least $1,250 in donations combined from registered lobbyists for Twitter (now known as X) and TikTok. Other attorneys and leaders in public policy or risk management from ByteDance (the parent company of TikTok), Twitter and Facebook donated at least $3,700 combined, according to FEC records.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) got $2,000 from Facebook PAC between 2018 and 2019, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) received at least $1,500 from a Facebook lobbyist between October 2018 and October 2022, according to FEC records.

Sens. Peter Welch (D-VT) — when he was running for the House — Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and John Kennedy (R-LA) each got $1,000 for their campaigns from Facebook PAC or executives between 2018 and 2021, records show.

Meta did not respond to Raw Story’s request for comment.

We asked 15 U.S. senators: Blood on Big Tech’s hands or on your hands?

WASHINGTON — If the titans of Silicon Valley have blood on their hands — as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Wednesday — then how much blood is on federal lawmakers’ hands for congressional inaction on measures to protect the nation’s children online?

Raw Story posed that question to 15 members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee as they exited their high profile hearing with the heads of TikTok, Snapchat, Discord, X (formerly Twitter) and Meta where senators, like Graham, the committee’s top Republican, blamed the CEOs for the issue Congress has yet to address.

“Mr. Zuckerberg, you and the companies before us, I know you don’t mean it to be so, but you have blood on your hands,” Graham said as the room erupted with applause.

ALSO READ: Kevin McCarthy just got jacked

Graham's argument: Social media companies have failed to adequately combat online sex predators, bullies and harassers, as well as the proliferation of content that glorifies violence, exacerbates eating disorders and elevates unrealistic beauty standards."

Raw Story caught up with Graham in the hall outside the hearing, and offered his accusation back to him as a question.

“If there’s blood on their hands,” we inquired, “how much blood is on Congress’ hands for inaction?”

“It's fair to say that we need to do better. Yes, absolutely. I think you can say it eventually becomes our problem,” Graham told Raw Story.

Graham says the solution is easy: Pass the legislation he wrote with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) to set up a new regulatory commission overseeing Big Tech.

Matt Laslo · Blood on Big Tech’s hands – or blood on Congress’ hands – for not protecting kids online?

“It’s very simple: Let them be sued,” Graham said. “Pass the bills. Pass a regulatory commission.”

It’s not that easy though, or so it seems from the deafening sound – and empty feeling – of congressional inaction for years on end.

In 2021, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen warned Congress “lives were in danger,” while also divulging thousands of pages of internal documents to back up her dire warnings.

Last year, Haugen’s testimony was supported by a second Meta whistleblower, Arturo Bejar, who testified that he warned Zuckerberg and other executives – “they knew and they were not acting on it” – about the pitfalls of the platform to teens and children to no avail.

Facebook has since changed its corporate name to Meta.

Congress, however, has taken no significant action.

‘For good or for evil’

In his opening remarks Wednesday, Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) touted five measures that have passed out of his committee aimed at protecting kids online.

They include slapping an up to $850,000 fine on tech companies that fail to report child sexual abuse content and giving the Department of Justice enhanced prosecutorial tools to go after those who spread child porn online.

But Durbin didn’t mention that the measures have languished, never coming before the entire Senate for a vote.

Blood on Congress’ hands?

“We've tackled this markup a year ago, so this hearing is a follow-up for that,” Durbin – the whip or number two most powerful Democrat in the Senate – told Raw Story.

“But it’s never seen the light of day on the floor?” Raw Story pressed.

“Not yet,” Durbin said.

So, when will it?

Crickets from Durbin.

There will be blood

Many senators on the Judiciary Committee disagreed with Graham’s characterization — at least when the charge of “blood on your hands” was leveled at Congress.

“I don’t necessarily think of it, or express it, in that way,” Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) told Raw Story. “But we all have responsibility, and to the extent we can change the laws that will provide safety for our children, then that’s what we should do.”

It wasn’t just Democrats — who are in the majority and thus control votes on the Senate floor — who took umbrage with the characterization and question of Congress having blood on its hands.

“I don’t think that’s helpful,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told Raw Story. “As you know, social media can be used for good or for evil, and that’s a huge challenge.”

ALSO READ: Uncivil war: How Speaker Mike Johnson’s dream of bipartisan decency died in his hands

One member of Graham’s party asked not to be named so he could candidly discuss his colleague.

“It’s very productive for getting attention, but I don't like it,” the senior Republican senator on the Judiciary Committee told Raw Story. “I certainly don't buy the idea that blood is on our hands for not prohibiting something, particularly something that does have legitimate uses.”

One member of the committee, known for his pithy one liners, seemed to lose the use of his tongue, if momentarily.

“I don’t have anything for you on that,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told Raw Story before the senator answered a question from a television crew.

Defensiveness aside, many members of the Judiciary Committee admitted Congress’ culpability.

“We’ve got some responsibility,” Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) told Raw Story.

Blood on Congress’ hands?

“That's a great question,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told Raw Story. “We ought to do something … We need to vote.”

Hawley — who’s usually anti-regulation — has been one of the Senate’s most vocal advocates for policing Silicon Valley firms, especially when it comes to children who he’s proposed not be allowed on social media until they hit 16 years old.

Being pro-business, to Hawley, does not mean letting tech titans pave their own digital superhighways.

“Their view is, they’re for regulation, if they can write the regulation,” Hawley said. “I've just become — after working on this now for five years — I've become convinced that the best way to drive change is to allow people to get into a courtroom. That’s the key thing. It's what they hate. That's what they want the least. They would rather a new agency, than have the courtroom doors opened up to private citizens.”

Hawley’s been lonely for much of those five years, but these days — after two Meta whistleblowers in three years have captured Congress’ attention — other Republicans agree Congress is complicit in hurting children and has therefore stained its hands.

“I think through inaction, it’s a shared responsibility,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told Raw Story.

Time to un-friend?

While Big Tech has dropped tens of millions of dollars on lobbying efforts to defeat proposed regulations, Tillis is not alone in arguing that the companies need to change their tune before Congress is forced to change it for them.

“The industry needs to stop looking at safety as a competitive advantage and come up with a collaboration that they all use,” Tillis said. “I think the industry needs to realize you, you need to compete on features, you should all be looking for the same norm in terms of community safety.”

Blood on Congress’ hands? Some Republicans say they’re in the minority so don’t look at them.

“At the end of the day, Chuck Schumer controls what goes to the floor, and at least so far, he has not been willing to move this legislation. It should move,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told Raw Story.

Schumer’s office didn’t reply to a request for comment on if — or when — measures aimed at protecting children’s privacy online may hit the Senate floor this year. But his rank-and-file believe this – just as last year was and the year before that – is the year.

“Leader Schumer has committed that he will work with us in bringing this bill and others to the floor,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) told Raw Story. “Hopefully as soon as possible but before the election.”

As for whether Congress is covered in the same blood in which Silicon Valley is now — according to Graham — covered?

“Congress has a responsibility to act, and it must act,” Blumenthal said. “I’m not talking about blood on people’s hands, I'm talking about a basic responsibility.”