Democrats just handed ICE exactly what ICE asked for.

[FREE SPEECH FRIDAY]

If you value my reporting, please, please support my work 👇👇👇

Join the Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/cw/taylorlorenz

Subscribe to my Substack: https://www.usermag.co

Body cameras were supposed to hold police accountable. So why is police violence still rising? Why are cops almost never convicted using body cam footage? And why are Democrats (the same politicians who just tripled the ICE budget) now demanding that ICE agents wear body cameras?

In this episode of Free Speech Friday, I sit down with Alec Karakatsanis, lawyer and author of the fantastic book Copaganda, to uncover the hidden history of police body cameras. While body cams are presented as a technological fix to deeply rooted institutional problems, they actually have the opposite effect.

We talk about how the multi-billion dollar police surveillance industry originally struggled to get funding for these cameras, how Steven Spielberg donated money to put cameras on cops, how the narrative completely shifted, and how Big Tech is cashing in.

Big Tech interest groups and reactionary non-profits are spending millions to push mass surveillance and censorship laws. My work is 100% self-funded. This series is not backed by any advertisers or tech giants.

If you value my reporting, please, please support my work 👇👇👇

Join the Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/cw/taylorlorenz

Subscribe to my Substack: https://www.usermag.co

Follow me:

https://www.instagram.com/taylorlorenz

https://www.instagram.com/taylorlorenz3.0

https://www.tiktok.com/@taylorlorenz

https://bsky.app/profile/taylorlorenz.bsky.social

https://twitter.com/taylorlorenz

We break down:

• How the police surveillance industry lobbied for body cameras for years before Ferguson, and why they desperately wanted them

• The brilliant marketing switch that rebranded body cams from a police surveillance tool into an "accountability and transparency" reform

• Why body camera footage is used every single day to prosecute poor people in courtrooms across America, but almost never used against the police

• How Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the Democratic Party helped sell this surveillance expansion to liberals

• Why the DOJ's own research shows body cameras do NOT reduce police misconduct or violence

• How ICE agents who killed Alex Preti and René Good were already filming themselves and were celebrated by their bosses

• The AI, facial recognition, and predictive policing data being harvested from body cam footage right now

• Why demanding body cams on ICE is a distraction from real accountability and actually gives ICE more money and power

• How Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and Kristi Noem all ended up on the same side of this debate

• The parallel between body cam propaganda and Democrat-backed internet surveillance laws

Are dumb phones actually the solution to our anxieties, or are they a $400 scam built on a moral panic?

~~~~~~~~~~

My work is 100% self-funded and this series is not backed by any advertisers or tech giants. If you value my reporting, please, please support my channel:

Join the Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/cw/taylorlorenz

Subscribe to my Substack: https://www.usermag.co

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Over the past few years, a massive industry has emerged around dumb phones and the concept of logging off. From $400 minimalist dumb phones to influencers selling digital detox courses, logging off has become big business. Schools are banning phones. Politicians are blaming screen time. Media outlets are calling Gen Z “addicted.”

But is ditching your smartphone actually the answer? In this video, I sat down with WIRED journalist Ilana Klein to unpack the rise of the logging-off movement. We discuss how reasonable concerns over screen time have metastasized into a consumer movement selling $400 minimalist dumb phones for millions in profit.

We also dive deep into the anti-smartphone moral panic , which is heavily pushed by reactionary politicians and legacy media. We explore the history of our relationship with the internet, from the tech optimism of the early 2010s and the algorithmic shift in 2016 , to the dangerous reality of school phone bans that are leading to AI surveillance and increased police interactions for students.

We also talk about the concept of "smartphone addiction," what it really means, and why your issues with technology are often manifestations of much larger societal problems.

Follow me:

https://www.instagram.com/taylorlorenz

https://www.instagram.com/taylorlorenz3.0

https://www.tiktok.com/@taylorlorenz

https://bsky.app/profile/taylorlorenz.bsky.social

https://twitter.com/taylorlorenz

We cover:

The history of smartphones and how our relationship to them changed

Why dumb phones are being marketed as luxury wellness products

The moral panic around teen mental health and smartphones (and why the data is messier than you think)

How figures like Tristan Harris and Jonathan Haidt shaped the anti-tech, pro-surveillance narrative

Why "phone addiction" isn't a real clinical concept, and what you're actually feeling

Practical ways to improve your relationship with technology without throwing your phone in a river

Why the anti-smartphone movement is anti-privacy and pro-surveillance

How to think about your phone as a tool instead of an enemy

Sen. Ron Wyden speaks about Section 230, internet freedom, free speech, and how Trump is pushing big tech's policies.

Big Tech interest groups and reactionary non-profits are spending millions to try to get Section 230 revoked. My work is 100% self-funded. This series is not backed by any advertisers or tech giants. If you value this reporting, please, please support the channel:

Join the Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/cw/taylorlorenz

Subscribe to my Substack: https://www.usermag.co

Section 230 is one of the most important, and most misunderstood, laws in the history of the internet. In this episode of my Section 230 mini series, I sit down with Senator Ron Wyden, one of the original co authors of Section 230, to break down what the law actually does, why it exists, and what would happen if it were repealed.

Section 230 protects user generated content and ensures platforms are not treated as the speaker of everything posted online. Without it, social media platforms, forums, comment sections, Wikipedia, Reddit, and any website that hosted user generated content could be sued out of existence.

There is growing political pressure to "reform" aka dismantle Section 230 entirely. If you care about online privacy, free speech, data surveillance, algorithm accountability, Big Tech regulation, or the future of the internet, I hope you'll watch!

This is part two of my Section 230 deep dive series taking place every Monday.

Follow me:

https://www.instagram.com/taylorlorenz

https://www.instagram.com/taylorlorenz3.0

https://www.tiktok.com/@taylorlorenz

https://bsky.app/profile/taylorlorenz.bsky.social

https://twitter.com/taylorlorenz

We cover:

• What Section 230 really says

• Why both the left and right are attacking it

• Whether repealing 230 would protect kids

• The truth about Big Tech and liability

• Identity verification and online privacy

• Surveillance advertising and algorithm regulation

• What free speech online actually means

• Why generative AI is not covered by Section 230