Nick Fuentes' Bot Controversy, Kids 16 & Under BANNED From Social Media, & AOC vs Gavin Newsom
PDS Published 12/09/2025
-
Piers Morgan interviewed the infamous white nationalist Nick Fuentes for two hours yesterday, and there was yelling, there was fighting, there was insults.
Right, we’ve seen all that stuff before, but what I want to focus on for a moment is something that everyone seems to have glossed over, something that Piers and Fuentes actually agree on.
[Clip, 00:13 - 00:17] Caption: [Piers Morgan:] “Let’s be clear, the main reason you’re hearing about him is because he’s popular.”
[Clip, 01:17:31 - 01:17:44] Caption: [Nick Fuentes:] “I’m making a lot of money now, now that I’m the number one livestreamer in America because people agree with me more than they agree with you. We’re tired of hearing about slavery and the Holocaust and Jim Crow. We’re done hearing about that.”
But y’all, hold on a minute; is that really true? [Play record scratch and freeze frame on Nick]
Right, is Nick Fuentes actually on all these shows from Tucker Carlson to Piers Morgan because he’s too popular to ignore?
I ask that because we’ve got this new study from the Network Contagion Research Institute that suggests the answer is no. [Title page]
In fact, it’s opening lines couldn’t be more clear; they state:
“Nick Fuentes’s surge into national visibility did not originate from a broad or sudden shift in American political sentiment. It emerged from a pattern of online amplification that was unusually fast, unusually concentrated, and unusually foreign in origin.” [Quote same link]
And the researchers came to that conclusion by sampling 20 of his most recent posts on X, then comparing them to similar posts from Elon Musk, Hassan Piker, Ian Carroll, and the streamer Destiny.
And strikingly they found that engagement within the first 30 minutes of Fuentes posting something routinely outperformed all the others, even accounts 10 to 100 times as large. [Page 8, figure 1A]
What’s more, just over 60% of that engagement came from the same repeat accounts, which is “highly suggestive of coordination or automation.” [Page 10, figure 2]
With 92% of those repeat early reposters being “fully anonymous,” having no real name, no real photo, no location, and no contact info. [Page 10, figure 3]
And a majority were “openly” or “functionally single-purpose” accounts” dedicated to promoting Fuentes and related extremist positions. [Page 11, figure 4]
But if you’re still not convinced, here’s the cherry on top:
Roughly half of all the accounts that promoted Fuentes’s most viral posts before the assassination of Charlie Kirk came from foreign countries like India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia and Indonesia, all sites of known content-engagement farms. [Page 12, figure 5]
So then, after the Kirk assassination, that artificial engagement made Fuentes appear “active, relevant and in position when a replacement narrative became available inside the broader MAGA ecosystem.” [Page 16, figure 7]
Or in other words, Kirk fell off his throne, and bot farms offered up Fuentes as his natural heir.
So as a result, mainstream media coverage of Fuentes increased more than threefold since September. [Quote same link, find “threefold”]
And incredibly, even the way he was covered changed.
With so-called “high-status descriptions” — which portrayed him as vastly more consequential and influential than any material changes would warrant — increasing 60%. [Page 17, figure 8]
And according to the study, whereas before, outlets presented Fuentes in “ghoulish, unattractive terms,” now even ostensibly left liberal ones have “adopted markedly more polished visual treatments” of him. [Page 14, figure 6]
With these including “studio-grade portraits, controlled lighting, shallow depth of field, and editorial framing that visually positioned Fuentes as a consequential political figure.” [Same figure]
Then, when Fuentes gets a chance to speak for himself on these mainstream platforms, he accepts his polished image.
Right, on Piers Morgan, for example, he claimed that most of the worst racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic bile you’ve heard him spew on Rumble? That’s all rhetoric, hyperbole and jokes.
Though on question after question, he was pretty unapologetic about things he’s said.
[Clip, 01:26:19 - 01:26:25; Clip, 22:02 - 22:06; Clip, 26:13 - 26:20; Clip, 01:08:55 - 01:09:04; Clip, 01:12:20 - 01:12:37] Caption: [Piers Morgan:] “You think women want to be raped, do you?” [Nick Fuentes:] “That’s what the studies show, Piers.” … [Piers Morgan:] “Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part?” [Nick Fuentes:] “Uh, yeah.” … [Piers Morgan:] “But you’re basically saying, ‘yeah, I’m a racist,’ aren’t you?” [Nick Fuentes:] “Yeah, yeah I’m fine with that.” … [Piers Morgan:] “You think Hitler was very fucking cool?” [Nick Fuentes:] “Yes, I do. And I’m tired of pretending he’s not.” … [Piers Morgan:] “He murdered twelve million people. What is very fucking cool about that? Tell me.” [Nick Fuentes:] “The edits? It’s just cool. The uniforms, the parades, it’s cool, as a guy. You look at World War II, and it’s fascinating and it’s interesting and it’s compelling and it’s cool.”
Now I should clarify, just because Fuentes became popular artificially, that doesn’t mean his popularity is still artificial.
Right, because as the study notes, after Kirk’s assassination, the distribution of accounts promoting him shifted from those Asian and African countries I listed to Western ones. [Page 12, figure 5]
Meanwhile, Groyper accounts, the name for Fuentes’s followers, began raiding the comments sections on Turning Point USA’s content. [Quote same link, find “invading”]
All of which, according to the report, suggests that non-Western bot farms gave Fuentes the initial boost he needed, and then genuine Western engagement followed suit. [Same quote]
With one mainstream outlet after another picking it up — right, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Guardian, Politico — until it snowballs and Nick Fuentes becomes a conversation you simply can’t ignore if you’re in the world of American politics.
Which is why even I had to talk about him, though to be clear, I don’t enjoy this — I’d prefer if he just disappeared.
But whether I like it or not, and whether his rise was even organic, he’s here now, and he’s trying to conquer the Republican Party.
Which of course may be very difficult, but one thing’s for sure: it’s easier for him than getting laid.
[Clip, 01:25:25 - 01:25:31; Clip, 01:58:47 - 01:58:53; Clip, 01:24:47 - 01:24:54] Caption: [Piers Morgan:] “Have you ever had sex?” [Nick Fuentes:] “No, absolutely not.” [Piers Morgan:] “Wow. … Have you ever been in love in your life?” [Nick Fuentes:] “No.” … [Piers Morgan:] “You’re not gay?” [Nick Fuentes:] “No. But I will say that women are very difficult to be around.”
-
Millions of kids and teens in Australia just lost access to social media – the country now implementing a world-first ban on social media for people under the age of sixteen.
Right, under the law, Facebook, Instagram, Tiktok, Snapchat, X, Youtube, Reddit, Twitch, Kick, and Threads?
They’re all expected to have taken steps to deactivate underage profiles as well as prevent those users from signing up for new accounts.
New platforms could be added to the list in the future – and those that don’t comply risk fines of up to almost 50 million dollars. []
And, on that note, X is the only company on the list that, as of recording, hasn’t publicly confirmed it would comply with the ban.
So we’ll have to see what happens there.
But even for those companies that do comply, there’s still a question of how effective this will actually be.
Outlets have already reported, for example, that some people under sixteen have been able to get past facial recognition scans meant to keep them off platforms.
With one parent telling the Guardian that their 15-year daughter was “very distressed” because “all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat.” []
And another had another parent telling the outlet that he’d actually shown his child how to get around age restrictions using VPNs and other methods.
Also saying he had “assisted her in bypassing TikTok’s age-estimation and will keep doing so each time it asks.” []
Although, notably, he may be in the minority – with polling showing that around two-thirds of Australian voters supported the ban.
Unsurprisingly, however, the opposite seems to be true among kids affected by the ban.
With one survey of kids between the ages of nine and sixteen finding that well over half thought the ban wasn’t a good idea – and that three-quarters said they intended on continuing to use social media.[]
And in fact, two 15-year-olds have brought a legal challenge against the ban to the country’s highest court.
But with all that, you had the country’s prime minister writing in an opinion piece over the weekend:
“From the beginning, we’ve acknowledged this process won’t be 100% perfect. But the message this law sends will be 100% clear” – adding:
“The fact that teenagers occasionally find a way to have a drink doesn’t diminish the value of having a clear, national standard.” []
That said, while we know all about the negative effects of social media, there are those who worry blocking it could have negative effects as well.
And the good news there is that as part of all this there’s an independent academic advisory group that’s supposed to look into the short, medium, and longer-term impacts.[]
WIth the official in charge of the ban saying:
“It will look at the benefits over time, but also the unintended consequences.”
And saying these potential unintended consequences include whether children end up moving on to other platforms or, quote, “darker areas of the internet.” []
So that will hopefully provide some useful information for the rest of the world.
But in the meantime some other governments – including Malaysia, Denmark and Norway – have started moving ahead with their own versions of this policy.
And the European parliament has also passed a resolution calling for a ban.
And so if you’re from one of these places, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the whole situation.
Or, if you’re not, let me know if you’d like to see something like this where you live.
PDS DEBT: PDS Debt and get your free assessment
-
A new poll just revealed a clear early frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nominee in 2028.
But it also shows — in hard numbers — that Democrats are MUCH more divided than Republicans about who should be the next president.
Right, the newly released Yale Youth Poll surveyed more than 3,400 registered voters, including around 1,700 aged 18-34.
And specifically, the survey found that California Governor Gavin Newsom is the top choice among Democrats for the presidential primary, leading by 25%.
With Kamala Harris coming in second at 18%, followed closely by AOC at 16% and Pete Buttigieg at 14% — the only four candidates who received more than 5% support.
But when you break it down by age, the numbers tell a VERY different story.
Right, a huge plurality of Newsom’s support comes from voters 65+, with 38% of that group saying they would vote for him if the primaries were held today.
But for the three different categories of voters ages 18-34, AOC takes the lead, gaining nearly 30% or more among all those age groups.
In fact, AOC absolutely dominates Newsom across those demographics — she has nearly double the support he has for voters 18-34, and still majority outperforms him with 35- to 44-year-olds.
But support for AOC really starts to drop off among respondents 45 and older.
Right, among the 45-64 group, AOC has half as much support as both Newsom and Harris, who clocked in at 22% and 23% respectively.
Also, VERY significantly here, Democrats were pretty evenly split over whether the party should embrace moderate or progressive policies.
With 49% saying that Dems should moderate their policies, while 45% said they need to focus on turning out their voter base by running on progressive platforms.
Though, unsurprisingly, that also broke down by age, with majorities of voters 18-34 saying the party should shift progressive, while a larger share of the 45-65+ groups said it needs to be more moderate, and voters 35-44 were evenly split.
So clearly, progressive policies and left-leaning candidates like AOC have a lot of sway with a big chunk of younger Americans, but the real question is whether she — or anyone — can mobilize those voters.
Right, data from Pew Research Center shows that voters 50 and older were literally the ONLY age groups that had a higher ratio of voters to non-voters in the last two presidential elections.
For every other age group under 50, people who chose not to vote at all outnumbered those who actually voted.
Now, of course, none of these three people has officially announced that they are going to run.
Back in October, Newsom told CBS that he’d be “lying” if he said he wasn’t considering a potential run.
Harris, too, has left the option open, saying she’s “not done” when asked about a potential second run.
And while this new poll shows her as the clear progressive frontrunner, AOC hasn’t publicly hinted that she’s interested in the job, at least in 2028.
Now, of course, things will shift once people start officially announcing their campaigns, but in the meantime, this poll seems to accurately illustrate just how fractured Democrats are about the best path forward in 2028.
But, very interestingly, despite the fierce and ongoing Republican civil war, the GOP appears to have a much clearer picture of what they want in the next election — at least compared to Dems.
Right, while the Democratic front runner leads by just 25%, a slim but notable majority of Republicans — 51% — said JD Vance was their preferred presidential nominee.
That’s more than SIX TIMES the support of the second-ranking candidate, which, weirdly enough, was Donald Trump Jr. at 8%.
With Ron DeSantis clocking in just below that, while Nikki Haley and Marco Rubi each got 5%.
Though, notably, you also had RFK Jr. and Tucker Carlson making the leaderboard with 3% each.
In fact, Tucker Carlson actually came in second among Republicans aged 18-22, clocking in at 13%.
But, perhaps most significantly for Republicans, the poll also showed that, first and foremost, the GOP is still the party of Trump.
Right, when Republicans were asked who they would vote for if the primaries were held today and Trump was allowed to run for a third term, the president absolutely took the cake.
With a whopping 50% of Republicans saying they would back Trump again — more than double the 19% who said they would vote for JD Vance in such a scenario.
But, of course, all this is really early — this shouldn’t be taken as any kind of real gauge, but more of a very important thermometer that is taking the temperature of both parties as we head into the midterms and look ahead to 2028
-
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis designated one of the largest Muslim advocacy groups in the US as a “foreign terrorist organization.
Right, that group is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, also known as CAIR.
And this move by DeSantis follows a similar declaration last month by Texas Governor Greg Abbot.
And both of their orders apply not only to CARE but also the Muslim Brotherhood.
Which started in Egypt almost a century ago and now has a number of affiliated groups overseas.
And while its leaders say they’ve renounced violence – seeking to set up Islamic rule through elections and other peaceful means – it’s viewed as a threat by certain governments in the Middle East and has been accused of supporting terrorism.
The Trump administration, for example, has accused certain Muslim Brotherhood factions of backing attacks against Israel and other American partners in the region – as well as providing material support to Hamas.
And with that, the White House also recently began the process of designating certain chapters as foreign terrorist organizations and specially designated global terrorists.
And the Desantis order references that process as justification for its own designation and extends it to CARE by claiming the organization was “founded by persons connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.”[]
Also referencing alleged links to the Holy Land Foundation, a group federally designated as a terrorist organization back in 2001– with some of its leaders now serving sentences of up to 65 years in federal prison.
Although, notably, some have questioned how that case was handled.
Human Rights Watch, for example, has condemned the process and called for the release of those convicted.
But in any case, as far as what the Florida order actually means for CARE?
It’s not totally clear yet, and it doesn’t carry anywhere near the same weight as a federal designation, but you’ve had Desantis writing on X:
“Florida agencies are hereby directed to undertake all lawful measures to prevent unlawful activities by these organizations, including denying privileges or resources to anyone providing material support.”
Notably, however, the order doesn’t appear to prohibit CARE or the Muslim Brotherhood from buying land in the state.
Which I mention because the Texas order does bar both groups from purchasing property in the state – also authorizing the state attorney general “to sue to shut them down” in Texas. []
And speaking of the Texas order, CARE has already sued Abbot in federal court, as well as announced its plans to sue Desantis over what the group has described as “unconstitutional” and “defamatory” orders.
Also accusing DeSantis of being an “Israel First politician’ and adding:
“Governor DeSantis knows full well that CAIR-Florida is an American civil rights organization that has spent decades advancing free speech, religious freedom and justice for all, including for the Palestinian people.” []
But with all that, this may continue to be an uphill battle for the group.
Right, on top of the executive order, you’ve had DeSantis claiming the Florida Legislature is crafting legislation to, quote:
“...stop the creep of Sharia law”
Adding that he hopes they “codify these protections for Floridians against CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood in their legislation.”
Also, notably, at the federal level, you’ve had Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggesting in the past that similar actions were “in the works.”[]
And conservative lawmakers have previously urged Trump to investigate CARE and even introduced legislation to designate it as a terrorist group.
With all this having the potential to seriously impact this one rights group but also test the playbook for going after others.
Get an exclusive NordVPN deal at NordVPN Risk free with Nord's 30-day money back guarantee!
-
Are David and Larry Ellison going to shape CNN to President Trump’s will?
That is one of the many concerns people are bringing up as Trump has found himself right in the middle of the Warner Bros. merger news.
Right, Netflix already announced that they would be buying WB, but Paramount is trying to get in the way of that by launching a hostile takeover bid.
And while both of these options come with red flags, you have tons of people concerned about Paramount over ties to Donald Trump.
Its CEO David Ellison is the son of Trump ally Larry Ellison.
And the funding for Paramount’s offer is backed by Ellison family money, foreign wealth funds, and Trump’s own son in law, Jared Kushner.
Which people find especially alarming because if Paramount succeeds in its bid, it will own CNN, a major news network that Trump loves to openly hate.
And yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that David Ellison had been speaking directly to Trump’s administration about his plans for it.
With the outlet claiming that on a recent trip to DC, David:
“offered assurances to Trump administration officials that if he bought Warner, he’d make sweeping changes to CNN…[and] Trump has told people close to him that he wants new ownership of CNN as well as changes to CNN programming.”
And this comes as The Guardian actually previously reported that Larry Ellison had been talking to the White House about firing the CNN anchors Trump hates the most.
And if the idea of media moguls wooing Trump by promising to reshape a news network sounds like corruption to you, you would be right.
Though, right now, neither the White House or Paramount has commented on that reporting.
And for his part, yesterday, David Ellison laid out plans for CNN, saying it could be combined with CBS News, which Paramount already owns, adding: []
“We want to build a scaled news service that is basically, fundamentally, in the trust business, that is in the truth business, and that speaks to the 70% of Americans that are in the middle.”
But Trump’s role in all of this is still one of the biggest conversation points right now.
In his most recent comments, he has tried to distance himself from the merger.
Telling reporters yesterday that he had not discussed Paramount’s bid with Jared Kushner, and claiming that neither Netflix or Paramount “are particularly great friends of mine.”
But the thing is, Trump himself already said he would be involved in the decision.
Even though he should not be, right, presidents are not supposed to have influence over corporate deals.
But that is not how Trump wants to play, with the Journal further reporting that:
“the president will want Paramount and Netflix to compete for his approval of a deal.”[]
And this is just the politics of it, right, there are tons of other antitrust concerns coming from all angles.
This morning, Reuters reported that Netflix is facing a consumer lawsuit over its bid for WB.
You have op-eds left and right discussing how both these deals stand to impact and harm the movie theater industry.
And because there is so much going on here, I actually spoke to Senator Elizabeth Warren about all this.
Right, she had been sounding off on this news, saying that “A Paramount-Warner Bros. merger would be a five-alarm antitrust fire.”
So we unpacked all these concerns and more.
