Aggregator

Most Teens Aren't Going To Social Media For Politics

Zero Rss
16 hours 21 minutes ago
Most Teens Aren't Going To Social Media For Politics

Teens turn to social media for multiple purposes: to catch up with friends, for entertainment and to connect with others over similar interests.

However, as Statista's Anna Fleck reports a possible misconception, however, is that many are going to platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok for politics.

According to a recent survey of 1,458 teenagers in the United States, conducted between September 25 and October 9, under one in three respondents said that keeping up with politics or political issues was a main personal draw towards each of the respective social media platforms.

You will find more infographics at Statista

While most teens said that politics was not one of the main reasons for using the apps, U.S. teens were most likely to turn to TikTok and Instagram for political content (29 percent and 28 percent, respectively, said they would), followed by Snapchat (19 percent).

More popular reasons to use TikTok were entertainment (96 percent) and to know what’s going on with family and friends (86 percent).

When it comes to social media platforms as a source for news, then TikTok was also more commonly chosen over the other two.

Still, under half of respondents (45 percent) picked it as a main reason for using the platform, followed by 39 percent for Instagram and 26 percent for Snapchat.

Pew analysts found that Black teens were more likely than white and Hispanic teens to turn to TikTok for news, product recommendations and keeping up with athletes or celebrities and connecting with others.

Meanwhile, white teens on Snapchat were most likely to message people every day.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/07/2026 - 07:35
Tyler Durden

A Serious Country Does Not Swap Its Greatest Leader On Banknotes For Little Animals

Zero Rss
16 hours 56 minutes ago
A Serious Country Does Not Swap Its Greatest Leader On Banknotes For Little Animals

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity,

The Bank of England has now admitted the quiet part out loud. Historical figures including Winston Churchill were removed from future banknotes after researchers told officials they were "elitist and divisive."

The move replaces British legends with wildlife in a calculated step to sideline national heroes and accelerate cultural replacement.

This is not a neutral design update. It is institutional capture in action, where the man who rallied Britain against Nazi tyranny gets sidelined because focus groups and consultants found him too problematic for modern sensitivities and would prefer to look at a Fox or a hedgehog instead.

The Bank of England axed historical figures such as Winston Churchill from banknotes after being told they were "elitist and divisive", The Telegraph can reveal.

Read the full story here https://t.co/4et9ekywsg pic.twitter.com/V0WSXoKOfK

- The Telegraph (@Telegraph) June 5, 2026

The revelation aligns precisely with plans first laid out months earlier. Back in March, the Bank announced it would phase out portraits of Churchill on the £5 note, Jane Austen on the £10, JMW Turner on the £20, and Alan Turing on the £50. In their place would come native British wildlife, plants, and landscapes.

King Charles III would remain on the front of the notes. Officials claimed the shift followed a public consultation with over 44,000 responses, where around 60 percent supposedly favored nature themes for security reasons and to celebrate the environment.

Critics at the time called the idea absurd and bonkers. They warned it represented a war on history and showed the Bank had been captured by progressive ideology. One former business minister said notes should honor the historical giants who shaped the nation rather than fuzzy animals.

Another asked what came next - squirrels running the economy. Observers noted it fit a wider pattern of erasing or downplaying Britain's past under the banner of progress and diversity.

That pattern includes London museums draping portraits to "reclaim Caribbean history," the removal of Shakespeare, Thatcher, and Churchill artworks from 10 Downing Street in favor of pieces by artists with Caribbean ties, Cambridge panels labeling Churchill a white supremacist whose empire was supposedly worse than the Nazis, and a London primary school renaming "Churchill House" after Marcus Rashford to promote diversity. Statues of Churchill have faced vandalism and calls for removal, including during pro-Palestine protests earlier this year. Each step chips away at the symbols that once unified national memory.

Now the June reporting makes the motive unmistakable. Research commissioned by the Bank concluded that figures such as Churchill, Alan Turing, and Jane Austen were "contentious and not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity." Officials received advice to replace the portraits with nature images because historical figures represented "a backward-looking vision of the UK that carries too great a risk of division and controversy."

A serious country does not swap its greatest leader on its banknotes for little animals

Imagine India ditching Gandhi for a monkey. Or the USA dropping Washington for a racoon

This is the rot that is eating away at our confidence, identity and cohesion:

Bank dropped Churchill...

- Alex Phillips (@ThatAlexWoman) June 5, 2026

The Bank has insisted the decision was not driven by that specific research but by an earlier poll showing public preference for nature. Yet the Freedom of Information details tell a different story about how the process unfolded behind closed doors.

A public consultation is currently running on the wildlife shortlist. Proposed replacements include an owl, hedgehog, badger, or common frog. One commentator summed up the national mood: "We are not a serious country anymore."

The Bank of England is removing historical figures from banknotes and replacing with wildlife. They are currently running a public consultation on the wildlife shortlist. So on its next issue of banknotes, Winston Churchill, Jane Austen, JMW Turner will be replaced with the likes... pic.twitter.com/rshMcbol0g

- James Melville ? (@JamesMelville) June 4, 2026

Some of the animals under consideration are not even native to Britain. That detail alone exposes the move as more than harmless environmental appreciation. It functions as a psyop to further erode British culture - stripping away recognizable national symbols and replacing them with generic or imported imagery that weakens any sense of rooted identity.

'Some of them aren't even native to the UK! It seems like a very, very bizarre choice?'

@samfrancisuk reacts to the Bank of England removing Winston Churchill from banknotes, opting instead to feature animals. pic.twitter.com/T2uQXhDhmx

- GB News (@GBNEWS) June 6, 2026

This fits the same ideological framework that has infected other institutions. DEI priorities and critical race theory obsessions treat any strong assertion of British heritage as inherently suspect. The man who helped defeat fascism is recast as "divisive" while the focus shifts to animals that supposedly better reflect "cultural and natural diversity." The result is a currency that no longer celebrates the people who built and defended the country. It celebrates detachment instead.

The broader assault continues without pause. Schools, museums, government buildings, and now the Bank of England itself participate in softening, diluting, and apologizing for the past. Historical giants are judged not by their achievements but by whether they pass modern committee tests on representation. When they fail, they are quietly retired in favor of whatever the latest advisory group deems safe and inclusive.

Britain's wartime leader did not save the nation so that unelected researchers and captured bureaucracies could later declare him unfit for the money supply. Yet that is exactly what has happened. The same institutions that owe their continued existence to Churchill's stand now treat his image as a liability.

A country that systematically removes its heroes from public view is not evolving. It is forgetting how to value itself. The Bank of England's choice to prioritize "non-divisive" wildlife over the figures who actually shaped the United Kingdom sends a clear message: national pride is now considered too risky for everyday transactions.

Britons who still believe their history is worth defending have every reason to push back. This is not about banknote design. It is about whether the nation retains the confidence to honour the people and events that made it possible. Replacing Churchill with a hedgehog is not progress. It is surrender dressed up as sensitivity.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/07/2026 - 07:00
Tyler Durden

zero rss

Copyright (c) 2026 FYCKL Project