300 Strands claimed. Real-world yield is coming to Solana with @SplyceFi Feels good to be early. Your turn: solana.splyce.finance/reward…

The NGOs end up increasing the number of homeless people they manage, because that’s the only way to increase their revenue! Incentives drive outcomes. “Homeless” is a propaganda word used to describe people on the street who are mentally ill or severely addicted to drugs. The word implies that this is someone who fell a little behind on their mortgage payment and they’re one job offer away from getting back on their feet, which is obviously false if you’ve ever tried talking to a “homeless” person in SF, LA, NY, Austin or anywhere else. The honest reality is that we need to bring back asylums for extreme mental illness or drug addiction for those who are a serious danger to themselves or others.

It’s estimated that @SenatorWong spent 100k tax payer dollars travelling business class to NY. I asked what she actually did there. Apparently she drew attention to global fuel prices -of which our gov massively tax 50.6 cents per litre then double dip on GST

Here are five recent instances widely reported as Albanese statements conflicting with records or actions: 1. Denied falling off a stage in 2025 ("I didn’t fall off the stage") despite clear video of the tumble. 2. Ruled out negative gearing/CGT changes "for the 50th time" pre-election, then introduced them in the 2026 budget. 3. Denied linking digital duty of care laws to misinformation after his UN speech explicitly did so. 4. Said he was unaware of honorary membership at Marrickville Golf Club after it received a $6m grant. 5. Official transcript scrubbed his "Gulf of Hormuz" gaffe from the UN address.

Coward who knows he's wrong has comments perma blocked... These people are such genius they can only handle one way conversations. @20thCenturyDan

The AI “hack” story spun by Albanese and the Labor government is a massive hoax and a fabricated story. Statements made so far by government officials have been heavily scrutinised by cybersecurity and tech experts. The initial finding is that the story has been extremely exaggerated in terms of the scope of AI dangers, while downplaying the pre-existing vulnerabilities of a poorly managed website that was publicly exposed. In the coming days, more Australian and international technical experts will be looking for answers after the story received major international coverage as part of this week’s AI “end of the world” news cycle. Albanese and co. won’t be able to bluff their way past the actual technical data related to the “hack”, unless they are counting on the Australian public simply forgetting about it. The bigger question is why Albanese is running this hoax about an AI “hack”.

FUCKING Victorian #Labor … This is a kick in the teeth for the Jack Beasley Foundation … I suppose Ben Carroll MP thinks the machete bins are enough to curb knife crime in Victoria .. 🙄

Legacy media REFUSED to show you a SINGLE SECOND of President Trump's speech and historic state dinner with Xi Jinping tonight at the White House So here's the ENTIRE thing, from start to finish, with translations for Xi's speech DO NOT LET LEGACY MEDIA KEEP YOU IN THE DARK

The Australian Government claims that this constitutes a unique risk. It does not. The same portal that OpenAI is alleged to have scraped has been publicly accessible and independently scraped by members of the public for more than a year. This script was also posted on LinkedIn but it has been subsequently taken down. It fits the bill exactly. github.com/bfiripis/Web-Scra…

Anthony Albanese must think Australians are too stupid to see through his lies. Yesterday he linked social media algorithms, political extremism, misinformation and the rise of parties like One Nation while defending Labor's new Digital Duty of Care scheme. Today, when a journalist asked him about those comments, he flatly declared: "I didn't link the two." What a joke. The transcript exists. The video exists. Everyone can see exactly what he said. Less than a day after exposing Labor's real agenda, Albanese is trying to pretend it never happened. Why? Because he got caught. The Prime Minister's problem isn't misinformation. His problem is that millions of Australians no longer trust Labor because of their lies. Now he's trying to walk back the truth because he revealed too much. This is a Prime Minister who thinks yesterday's transcript can be erased by today's talking points. #FireTheLiar

BREAKING: Communications minister Anika Wells admits the purpose of the Digital Duty of Care bill is about giving more power to the #eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant, other words, government control. Yesterday, Albo said it was the opposite to that. Fire The Labor Liars.

More details

How do you gleefully sign agreements for profit while it's citizens are being forced off the street and dragged handcuffed to the front lines to die?

RT @SenSHenderson: #BREAKING Albanese let the cat out of the bag today about Labor’s Digital Duty of Care, and then tried to hide it. Thi…

THE UNITED STATES RESPONSE TO THE LABOR GOVERNMENTS 'DIGITAL DUTY OF CAREE' - Link to the official Embassy site below. The United States welcomes the opportunity to provide input to Australia’s public consultation on the “Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 – Exposure Draft.”  Preserving a free, open internet and protecting freedom of expression online are top priorities for the Trump Administration.  We offer the following views on the proposed Digital Duty of Care framework.  Our objective is to ensure that any resulting measures respect freedom of expression and fair competition, by avoiding restrictions on speech that should be protected, and preventing prescriptive product design mandates or expanded litigation risks that unduly burden American companies. Speech & Platform Design Concerns – The United States has serious concerns about the Australian government’s stated goal of mandating broad duty of care requirements that dictate how platforms manage content and users’ feeds.  Concerns include:  1) how the Australian government, or the Communications Minister, would designate what constitutes “foreseeable harm”; and 2) any resulting requirement that platforms alter their algorithmic systems to suppress expression that should be protected in order to avoid liability, or, if not an explicit requirement, any approach that would likely result in platforms defaulting to pre-emptive censorship to avoid the risk of liability. - We are particularly concerned by potential mandates that would allow regulators to impose rigid, one-size-fits-all platform design requirements – such as forced chronological feeds or opt-in recommendation systems. - A framework that empowers governments to enforce vague definitions of “harm” risks becoming a mechanism for viewpoint-based censorship, as platforms will be incentivized to over-moderate speech that should be protected to avoid regulatory penalties. - Such a framework also risks reducing the reach of independent journalists or other voices whose content touches on sensitive or controversial topics that platforms may preemptively demote to comply with overbroad safety mandates. - We ask that Australia clarify how exactly “harm” and “risks” shall be determined, if there are any standard definitions that will be utilized, and by whom in the context of the proposed plans, ensuring these definitions do not encroach on protected speech. - If Australia compels platforms to aggressively filter content in algorithmic feeds to satisfy a government mandate, and such filtering draws in protected speech, the effect on a disfavored speaker or media source’s reach would not be meaningfully different than outright removal.  The U.S. government would likely consider such a measure as facilitating censorship. Extraterritorial Reach and Effects on U.S. Persons and Companies – a digital duty of care regime may have significant effects beyond Australian borders: - The large majority of social media and video-sharing platforms that would be affected are U.S.-headquartered companies, operating substantially on U.S. soil and serving American users alongside Australian ones. - We ask that Australia withdraw any plans to mandate that platforms algorithmically suppress content based on ambiguous government-defined safety criteria. - Mandated platform design features, especially when applied to algorithms, may affect what users see, say, and hear not just in or from Australia, but globally.  Platforms generally build and deploy product features at a global scale rather than market-by-market; forced platform design changes to mitigate Australia-specific risks could result in systemic changes that affect how users everywhere, including Americans, experience these platforms and reach audiences. - If other jurisdictions adopt their own, potentially conflicting duty-of-care mandates, platforms could face incompatible design requirements that are not technically or commercially scalable to implement in parallel.  Thus, creating pressure toward a lowest-common-denominator or most-restrictive-jurisdiction outcome. - The U.S. government has made clear its opposition to foreign measures that result in extraterritorial censorship of protected speech by Americans online. Economic Concerns – the proposed digital duty of care regime, depending on how it is implemented, potentially raises significant concerns regarding fair competition, market access, and trade treatment for American companies, independent media, and content creators: - Australia is regarded as a global leader and has pioneered regulatory approaches that have helped further innovation. - We encourage Australia to consider how prescriptive design mandates that dictate platform architectures could affect Australia’s reputation as a jurisdiction that enables innovation – rather than one that unduly constrains the development and use of technology. - The Australian Online Safety Act 2021 already affords robust protections against unprotected, illegal content and grants the eSafety Commissioner significant takedown powers.  Layering mandated algorithmic and duty of care requirements for platforms on top of these existing mechanisms risks heightening concerns about regulatory overlap and unpredictability. - Regulations that impose disproportionate compliance burdens on American companies relative to competitors, or that apply unevenly across similar services, will invariably raise concerns. - We urge Australia to provide sufficient, additional time for industry consultations with impacted companies as well as individual content creators. U.S. Questions for the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts for consideration as part of the consultation record: - How will the government ensure that duty-of-care risk assessments and feature requirements accommodate platform-specific architectures, rather than imposing blanket mandates (such as forced chronological feeds)? - What specific criteria will be used to determine whether a piece of content or a platform feature constitutes a “foreseeable harm” under the duty of care? Who will make such determinations, and will there be a process for users or platforms to appeal? - Industry has warned that such measures could result in downgraded visibility and stifle organic growth for creators and speech of independent journalists due to overly aggressive “safety” filters. We would welcome the Australian government’s response to these industry concerns as part of the consultation record. - How will platforms be determined to be in scope and subject to the most stringent duty of care obligations? - What role will third-party organizations or the eSafety Commissioner play in the enforcement of the duty of care regime? - What safeguards will ensure that any biases and preferences of Australian government officials and regulators do not influence platform design in ways that disadvantage independent or minority-viewpoint speech? - How will commercially sensitive data and data privacy be protected through the enforcement of DDOC, including in granting researcher access? - au.usembassy.gov/u-s-governm…

Whoops! Prime Minister Albanese has accidentally exposed Labor’s real censorship agenda. He has now confirmed that the new social media “Digital Duty of Care” scheme is nothing more than a back-door attempt to resurrect Labor’s rejected Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, while boasting about it overseas to his elite globalist friends. That’s despite his own Minister for Travel Expenses and Grand Final Rorts, Anika Wells, who also doubles as Labor’s Minister for Censorship, assuring Australians just two weeks ago that it “isn’t about misinformation”. Australians are supposed to believe one story at home while Labor tells a completely different story overseas. In his own words, Albanese admits these powers are being sold under the banner of “child safety” today, while laying the groundwork for much broader controls on speech and public debate tomorrow. If there was ever any doubt that this legislation is a Trojan horse, the Prime Minister has just all but removed it. Most revealing of all, Albanese has explicitly linked the need for new censorship powers to the rise of One Nation, declaring that “People are moving away from the centre and more and more to the extremes”. In other words, Australians are abandoning Labor in growing numbers, rejecting the political establishment, and Labor's response is not to listen to them, but to seek new powers to police online debate and suppress criticism. This is what governments do when they are losing the argument. They stop defending their record and start looking for ways to control the conversation. The truth is Labor cannot tolerate Australians questioning its failures on the cost of living, housing, energy prices, migration and government waste. Instead of fixing the problems it created, it wants new powers to manage what Australians can see, hear and say online. There appears to be no limit to how far this desperate Labor Government will go to protect its grip on power. Albanese should scrap this censorship scheme immediately, stop grandstanding overseas, and get back home to deal with the crises Australians are living through every day.

Australia’s Greens party openly admit they do not represent Australian Constituents. Mehreen Faruqi actively promoting globalist agendas on third world migration into Australia putting temper visa holders interests BEFORE Australians. Greens want Aussies gone.

Businesses don’t need handouts they need excessive, fees, permits and excise taxes cut and unnecessary regulation cut!

Nine sent an Australian journalist to the United States to seek out members of the Ku Klux Klan, record an interview with one of its leaders and broadcast those views to Australians as part of a story attempting to draw a link between the white supremacist organisation and One Nation. This follows the Nine Entertainment-owned Sydney Morning Herald giving a platform to neo-Nazis in the past fortnight in another attempt to smear One Nation. Having received more than $16 million from the federal government, Nine should explain why it used its resources to meet with and amplify the KKK and neo-Nazis. Nine should be ashamed of itself.

Never forget that the Biden White House KICKED OUT African Journalist Simon Ateba for Asking Questions.. Not one member of the corporate press called it out as an "attack on free speech". They stayed silent. Where was CNN? Where was MSNBC? Where was Politico? Ateba sued and was allowed back into the briefing room. Where Karine Jean Pierre stuck him in the back and never called on him. Legacy media doesn’t care about free speech or journalism they only care about their power to lie, smear and manipulate.

🚨 BREAKING: US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declares OpenAI management personally responsible for HuggingFace hack > "The Hugging Face incident, that is the responsibility of the OpenAI management, not a bunch of agents." > "It is humans who are responsible, not the AI." > "What we shouldn’t do on safety is to give these labs a liability exemption, which is what they are asking for." > "The best way to guarantee safety is that the creators are liable for what they build and generate." It’s OVER