'Social media is making children unhappy.' PM Sir Keir Starmer speaks in Downing Street, as he announces a social media ban for under-16s 📺 Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233 and YouTube

🚨 NEW: Keir Starmer will introduce nightly social media curfews for 16 and 17-year-olds as part of the Government's social media ban [@thetimes]

"Online safety" laws and age verification mandates have absolutely NOTHING to do with protecting children. You cannot stop under-16s from accessing a website without checking the age of everyone who visits it. And you cannot check everyone's age without forcing them to prove who they are. "Child safety" is the cheese in the mousetrap. Laws sold under the banner of "child protection" constitute a Trojan horse for a system requiring every adult to verify their identity before they can speak, read, or post online. The child is merely an emotional shield. The adult is the real target. And once that infrastructure exists, the pretext can be swapped out at will. Today it is pornography, social media and "harmful content". Tomorrow it is messaging apps and online banking. Soon after it is your ability to access the internet at all—each incremental step gated behind a digital ID you are required to keep in good standing. It's no accident that the exact same "online safety" agenda is being rolled out across the entire Western world simultaneously, with each national government reaching for a slightly different pretext to justify the same outcome—a verified digital identity standing between you and the open internet. Different countries. Different pretexts. Same infrastructure. They are not building a system to keep children safe. They are building the identity layer for a permission-based internet—orchestrated from the supranational level by people you never elected—where access to information itself becomes conditional on obedience. The point is not to make the internet safer. The point is to make anonymous access impossible. Because a person who can read, speak, organise and dissent anonymously is difficult to control. A person whose most intimate online activity is anchored to a state-monitored digital ID is not. Once every account, search, post, payment, message and website visit is tied to a verified identity, the internet stops being a public square and becomes a monitored enclosure. But the gate only closes if people accept "online safety" laws at face value.

BREAKING: Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has announced a social media ban for under-16s. Live updates: trib.al/AaXv2Tr

WHAT JUDGE LIMAN ASSESSED AT THIS STAGE 👇🏽👇🏽 Judge Liman has ruled @blakelively is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs under § 47.1 (but not treble/punitive damages via Rule 54(d)). Judge Liman expressly made no findings yet on “the appropriate measure of fees” and indicated the amount determination may involve apportionment. Documentation to Submit for Attorneys’ Fees 1) Detailed time records (contemporaneous billing) Provide time entries showing, for each task — Date —Timekeeper name and role, partner/associate/paralegal — Hourly rate — Hours billed — Task description with enough detail to evaluate necessity and reasonableness (avoid block billing where possible) — Matter/claim coding, ideally separating: Work defending the ‼️defamation claim (core § 47.1 work) ‼️and Work on other claims/issues (for potential apportionment) 2) Declarations to Include Provide sworn declarations from — Lead counsel: explains staffing, tasks, necessity, allocation methodology, and overall reasonableness. — Billing/finance custodian: authenticates billing records and invoices. — (Optional) Fee expert: supports market rates and reasonableness if the opponent disputes rates/hours. 3) Two motions to dismiss One filed by @blakelively. One filed by @nytimes. Both are now seeking attorneys’ fees for successfully defending the federal lawsuit (DEFAMATION). The NYT is seeking $181,622.70 after defending against what was, by any measure, an enormous and unusually complex complaint — 224 pages long. They attached detailed billing records, hours logs for in-house counsel, and invoices documenting the work performed. Meanwhile, BL is reportedly seeking around $ (we don't know now) in fees without attaching billing logs or invoices. Have a look at these 👇🏽👇🏽 URL (NYT's invoices): ⬇️ iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nys… URL (NYT's hours log): ⬇️ iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nys… #blakelively #justinbaldoni #livelyvsbaldoni