Summary: A sweeping new study from Northwestern University reveals that scientific fraud is no longer just the work of a few rogue researchers—it has evolved into a global, organized enterprise. By analyzing massive datasets of publications, retractions, and editorial records, researchers uncovered networks involving “paper mills,” brokers, and compromised journals that systematically produce and sell fake research, authorship slots, and citations.

1. “It won’t work”

Many people’s – and MSM outlet’s – first instinct is to argue against the ban on the grounds that it won’t work.

This is a mistake.

Firstly, as a point of principle, it is never correct to argue pragmatism when faced with a moral wrong. People have a right to privacy, the state breaching that right is morally wrong whether or not it works toward their stated aim.

In the case of the social media ban, arguing to ineffectiveness is doubly wrong because the government do not care if it works or not. There’s no point in arguing effectiveness, because the government’s stated aim is a lie. They don’t want to protect children, they don’t care about protecting children, so arguing that the social media ban won’t protect children is a waste of time. That’s not what it’s for.

If anything, as far as the government is concerned, the less it works the better because it will give them an excuse to “clampdown” even MORE in the future.

2. “Let’s compromise!”

Another common argument doing the rounds is that a social media ban isn’t the best tool for tackling the alleged “problem”, and that we should deploy something else instead.

Common “something elses” include digital curfews, smartphone bans, screen-time limits. The trouble with any and all of the mooted suggestions is that they are all enforced the exact same way – age verification.

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago…

This is very much an “any colour you want so long as it’s black” situation.

Choose an outright ban – “Great, please submit your ID to prove you’re over 16 and exempt from the social media ban.”

Choose screen time limits – “Great, please submit your ID to prove you’re over 16 and exempt from screen time limitations.”

Choose digital curfews – “Great, please submit your ID to prove you’re over 16 and exempt from the digital curfew.”

Any proposed “compromise measure” or “alternative plan” that also involves age verification or ID scanning is – by definition – neither a compromise OR an alternative, because the age verification and ID scanning is the entire point of the scheme.

3. “Why isn’t [platform A] included?”

Too many people have already started arguing that the ban is “unfair” or “hypocritical” because some platforms are not included.

The most commonly cited example is BlueSky, which Team Right members have been harping on about all day, often calling BlueSky a home for groomers and paedophiles.

Here’s GBNews screaming out…

>

This is a terrible argument, do you know why?

“The government has heard your concerns, and decided to bow to public pressure and include BlueSky in the ban moving forward.”

There, now what?

You’ve accepted the state’s position that there is a problem and that something must be done about it, and allowed them to paint themselves as reasonable by changing their plans in line with your objections.

Congratulations, you just played yourself.

As with everything else on this list, you cannot win the argument by accepting any part of the government’s position.

4. “[platform B] should be excluded!”

The same as point three, but reversed. Some are arguing that the presence of YouTube on the list is denying an important educational resource to school-age children, especially those taking their GCSEs (ages 15-16).

As above, if you make this argument all the government has to do is say…

“You’re right, YouTube is an important resource the nation’s children should have access to. We will exclude them from the ban on those grounds.”

…and you’re done.

And, let’s be honest, part of the reason the rollout is delayed until next spring is to facilitate discussions exactly like this. These back-and-forth “conversations” make the public feel involved and consulted and help with the illusion that the system is working – and cares.

All the while, behind the scenes, we can be absolutely certain insanely corrupt deals are going back and forth as tech CEOs lobby to get their platform excluded at the expense of rivals or reach sweetheart agreements where the government will pay them fees to cover the loss of advertising revenue from under-age users.

The entire trailer gives zero hints about the true nature of what this manga is like. 99% of it is done in the style of the Katastrophe arc in Gantz. Every shot shown is from the first half of the first chapter before it suddenly switches to an obvious Oku manga

He knew he could make boatloads of money by continuing CSM. The Reze arc movie just came out and was a huge hit. He had set up lots of new characters and storylines to keep the manga going for much longer.

But he knew that if he did that, we would like it, so he turned it down because disappointing us is more important to him than millions of dollars

In a sober reflection, Kevwe went down memory lane. “Let me tell you; Fela didn’t die of HIV AIDS o, don’t let them deceive you: it was government that killed Fela; soldiers gave him injection by force when they detained us at Doddan Barracks, but I don’t know the kind of injection they gave him. They locked us up; I was put in a cell with Fela; many soldiers pushed him face down, pulled his pant down and rushed one big injection into his nyash (bottom). Fela started to shake, but they still held him down, then he started to vomit, before he fainted.
“I was shouting, ‘them don kill Fela o; somebody help me o’, but they said ‘Madam shut up. Do you want injection too?’ and I shouted more, ‘I don’t want injection o, you people should leave us alone o.”
According to Kevwe, Fela remained in that state for three days, but the soldiers were coming to check him every morning.
“In the morning of the third day, they saw that Fela was awake; then they pushed him and me out; they spat at Fela and called him names, ‘useless man, igbo (Indian Hemp) smoker’.
“They were mocking and cursing him. When they pushed us outside the cell they said, ‘We will kill you, but not here; you will go and die in your house.”
Kevwe was not too sure why they locked them up; she could only recall Fela had a disagreement over some impropriety with top officers in the barracks.

She said:
“Fela used to hold some meetings with officers at the barracks; he was dining and drinking with them; Obasanjo and IBB used to be at the meetings;
then on that day, Fela disagreed with them; he was angry with the way they were carrying Nigeria’s money out of the country, something like the excess of budget money they didn’t spend, or something like that, and it was the time we were doing Movement of the People and Fela was the president. They warned me not to talk, otherwise they would kill me; and that’s why I don’t grant interviews. I don’t want trouble from government.”