Tom Huston

Writer and reformed stardust.

[Tom Huston @KosmicTom]

A little before and after mockup. @EthicalSkeptic, @Filippobiondi_1, @SterlingCooley, @TheProjectUnity, @OMApproach, @Graham__Hancock

[Tom Huston @KosmicTom]

Parents, take note. And stop subjecting infants or young toddlers to digital screens of any kind.

[Anish Moonka @anishmoonka]

Fred Rogers met with a child psychologist every week for 22 years to build his show. She shaped everything: every script, prop, and song. The whole point was to give a child's nervous system time to slow down. In 1984, a single regulatory decision ended all of it.

The psychologist was Dr. Margaret McFarland, who co-founded the Arsenal Family and Children's Center alongside Benjamin Spock and Erik Erikson. She and Rogers understood that the prefrontal cortex in children, the part of the brain that controls impulse, emotion, and attention, takes decades to fully develop. At the start of every episode, Rogers tied his sneakers and changed his sweater while children settled in. Those pauses were intentional, designed to help a child's nervous system shift into a calmer, more focused state.

What ended it had nothing to do with child development science. In 1984, Reagan's FCC chairman Mark Fowler abolished the advertising limits that had protected children's programming from commercial pressure. Toy companies moved within months. Between 1984 and 1985, cartoons tied to toy lines increased by 300%, from a handful of shows to more than 40 animated series. In almost every case, the toy was designed first. The cartoon was built to sell it.

Researchers later put numbers to what parents were already noticing. A 2011 study in Pediatrics from the University of Virginia tested 60 four-year-olds across three groups: one watching SpongeBob, which cuts scene every 11 seconds; one watching a slow PBS show, which cuts scene every 34 seconds; and one drawing. Nine minutes later, all three took tests on attention, impulse control, short-term memory, and problem-solving. The SpongeBob group scored significantly worse across every measure.

In the 1970s, children began watching television around age 4. Research from pediatrician Dimitri Christakis found that by 2009, the average age of first screen exposure had dropped to 4 months, as the content got faster and the audience got younger. Researchers separately found that each additional hour of daily screen time at ages 1 or 3 raised the risk of attention problems at age 7 by 9%.

[Ethical Skeptic ☀ @EthicalSkeptic]

ECDO Theory. Folleagues knew...

[Tom Huston @KosmicTom]

100% accurate.

[WasAcop @WasAcop]

🚨Labour confirms ID requirement at device level - VPNs useless.🚨

By forcing Apple and Google to verify age at the device level during phone setup…

Keir Starmer’s government isn’t protecting kids — it’s building a surveillance infrastructure.

The OS itself will restrict platforms like TikTok, Instagram and X, making VPNs largely useless because the block happens before any traffic leaves your phone.

🚨Once every device carries a verified age profile, authorities gain an easy route to identify users through legal requests to tech firms.

This is digital ID by the back door, sold as child safety.

Classic Labour: expand state control first, ask questions later.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

https://t.co/Ca4aMkAZqw

[Big Brother Watch @BigBrotherWatch]

🪪"You will now need to show your papers just to go onto a social media site."

A social media ban will "incur an enormous privacy intrusion for the British public."

@silkiecarlo reacts to Starmer's social media ban announcement, on BBC News⤵️

[Planet Of Memes @PlanetOfMemes]

Accurate

[Autism Capital 🧩 @AutismCapital]

Step one was the censorship at the app level. Because people are able to bypass that they are now censoring at the device/OS level (Step two). Step three is censorship at the ISP level. Think China. All sites pre-authorized by a "Ministry of Digital Safety" entity.

[Eric Weinstein @ericweinstein]

We hear it as consumption. But it's almost all for allocation. This is a huge issue we need to get past.

Name anyone you would rather see allocate 1T+.

Well done.

[tetsuo @tetsuoai]

History's first trillionaire is a guy who catches rockets out of the sky with chopsticks and beams internet to every dead zone on the planet.

Same guy ships cars that drive themselves, humanoid robots for the factory floor, brain chips that let paralyzed people move a cursor with pure thought, and an AI running on a supercomputer his team stood up in months instead of years.

And the people crashing out about his net worth are doing it on the app he owns. The same app governments spent years trying to censor.

You cannot legislate a rocket into orbit.

[Tom Huston @KosmicTom]

@TheGr8Historian @MichaelButtonX I'm saying if, within that 10,000-year period, the Earth's mantle and crust rotate 104 degrees, à la ECDO theory. The canals could end up at the bottom of the sea. See the link.

[Tom Huston @KosmicTom]

@TheGr8Historian @MichaelButtonX Not necessarily... https://t.co/TIxzpNpAhA

[Atlas Press @realAtlasPress]

Mark Twain, telegraphs through the mental realm

[Tom Huston @KosmicTom]

@SecretSunBlog Pretend you are a wave sitting in the middle of the ocean, aware of infinite other waves, and then realize you are the ocean and they are too—and your essence, sheer wetness, is immutable, boundless, and only One.

[Tom Huston @KosmicTom]

@ReikiREILLY @SecretSunBlog That is not what it says.

[Tom Huston @KosmicTom]

@SecretSunBlog John 10:32-36

[Methuselah @EcdoPrep]

Where does the 104 degree latitudinal displacement observed in an ECDO event come from? From the relative masses above and below where the outer core is sheared.

Why there? Because the outer core shows stable stratification, and the Lortentz forces are too strong to shear the balance of it. https://t.co/O4WLjFGTc2

71% of earth's mass is above this level.
29% is below.
Equal but opposite magnetic forces push during the climax of the Dzhanibekov flip.
Mantle + crust rotate 360*29%=104 degrees.

[Laura Aboli Official @LauraAboli_X]

Signal is 100% right.

The greatest trick governments ever pulled was convincing people that freedom and privacy are obstacles to safety.

What we are witnessing is not child protection. It is the construction of a surveillance architecture that will eventually monitor, profile, categorize and control every aspect of our digital lives.

Today it is age verification and content scanning, tomorrow it is digital identity, then financial monitoring, then behavioural scoring, then access to services conditioned on compliance.

The destination is not difficult to see. It is a technocratic system where every interaction is tracked, every transaction recorded, every opinion assessed and every citizen reduced to a data profile managed by governments and corporations working hand in hand.

A form of digital neo feudalism where a small unelected class controls the platforms, the infrastructure, the money and ultimately the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.

The argument that only criminals should fear surveillance is as absurd as saying only criminals need freedom of speech. Privacy is not evidence of wrongdoing, it is the foundation of human dignity, individual sovereignty and genuine liberty.

The UK government is asking citizens to accept the presumption of guilt simply to communicate online. To prove who they are, verify their age and allow their devices to inspect their content before they can participate in modern society.

History teaches us that every power granted to the state eventually expands beyond its initial mandate. The technology introduced to detect one form of content today will be used to police entirely different forms of expression tomorrow.

The choice before us is not between privacy and child protection, it is between preserving a free society, or constructing the infrastructure of a digital prison that will further enslave us.

[Tom Huston @KosmicTom]

@TheProjectUnity Good shirt for a Brit. :)

[Tom Huston @KosmicTom]

@Rushmelly @JackPosobiec Yeah, true—narrow, specific iterations of PC/woke exaggerated oversensitivity.