Recent events have shown that the ability to make rational and logical choices; may be left to those who are a little older. Riots and outrageous criminal acts are at an all-time high, and mostly being committed by those who are in their 20’s or younger. Now, to be clear; I’m not saying that every person below the age of 25 is incapable of making smart choices or behaving like an adult.
Because of the recent events, though, it occurred to me that the voting age in the United States should possibly be raised to 25 years old, rather than 18 years old. It remains true that many of the criminal acts being committed are by those who would still be able to vote under this change, but it is also true that there would be far less people voting for the leader of the country; who have not yet figured out how the world works. This year, in 2020, we will have people voting who aren’t aware of the importance of our history; which is why they foolishly want to ignore and do away with it.
I do believe that there should be one exception to this rule. Anyone under the age of 25 who has served in the US military, would be allowed to vote. The military will help you to grow up and to see the world for what it really is; including the rules and the reasons that the country is run the way that it is. Of course, this would also have the added benefit of ensuring that our military kept people. This exception would exist as an appreciation for serving; something that doesn’t exist enough; but also, to drive home the point.
The point is actually rather simple. If you want the right to vote for the leader of our country, you had best be able to understand what it is you are voting for and the consequences and results of that choice. There are far too many people of voting age who are trying to defund police; not realizing that it will increase crime. Far too many people turning violent, while claiming to want to end violence. Far too many people claiming to want peace and justice; while committing numerous crimes “for the cause.” If you can’t show a level of reasoning and intelligence to be a valuable member of society; then you don’t deserve the right to vote for who leads it.
Yes, it could even be argued that the US voting age should be raised as high as 30 years old. People these days are trying to destroy the Constitution and the very laws that give them the right to speak out. Speaking out is a right that every American has; those laws and the Constitution gives us that right. The violence, riots, and looting… is not speaking out, though. That is committing a crime; or several crimes in many cases. Perhaps the US voting age should be directly relative to the actions and displayed intelligence level of the generation effected by it. Of course, that may be too much to ask, but one can always hope.
Many of us are worried for the United States of America after this coming election; and rightfully so. We have faith that it will turn out the right way and that our country will be saved from the threat that faces it, but still we worry. If a certain hopeful wins (meaning “she” really wins after he steps down) … then perhaps I will move to another country before the US is taken over by China and is a socialist country. For those who are complaining and hate the country so much… fine… leave then.
Either way; we remain hopeful that it will all be saved in the end. Support those who need supporting and beware those who have chosen the criminal way of doing things. Surely; they will be stopped one way or another. Prison or with tanks up the street; it’s going to come to an end. If you are still reading then I have no doubt that like me… you are…
Proud to be an American.
About the Creator
Timothy A Rowland
I’m an every day human Xennial from the United States. I have many interest. I just want to improve your life and maybe entertain you. Available for editing and LeadsLeap projects at: https://www.fiverr.com/greyhatcompany
Keep reading
More stories from Timothy A Rowland and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Equality Without Anarchy
Equality without anarchy; can it exist? Think about something; even if you're too young to remember (as I am), undoubtedly you can at least imagine this. The last time that a race-related issue was raised and people turned to violence and destruction to make a point… it sent military tanks rolling up the city streets of Augusta and Harlem, GA.
By Timothy A Rowland5 years ago in The Swamp
Meta Blocks 550,000 Accounts Under Australia’s Social Media Ban
Australia’s Social Media Ban Hits Hard Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has blocked more than 550,000 accounts in response to Australia’s new social media regulations. The move comes as the government enforces stricter rules designed to combat misinformation, online harassment, and harmful content, including material deemed illegal or unsafe. While this is the largest enforcement action of its kind, it reflects a growing trend: governments are no longer treating social media platforms as free-for-all spaces. Regulators are increasingly holding tech giants accountable for what happens on their platforms—sometimes forcing them to act quickly and decisively, even at scale. What Australia’s Social Media Ban Entails Australia’s legislation, aimed at protecting citizens online, gives authorities the power to demand removal or restriction of content considered illegal, unsafe, or harmful. Social media companies that fail to comply face heavy fines. The law targets a range of issues, including: Misinformation and fake news Content promoting self-harm or suicide Hate speech and harassment Material that violates national security or public order For Meta, compliance meant identifying, reviewing, and blocking hundreds of thousands of accounts—a task of unprecedented scale. How Meta Responded Meta confirmed it had blocked over 550,000 accounts, including both individual users and pages, primarily to comply with government orders. The company also ramped up automated systems and human moderation teams in Australia to monitor content and enforce the new rules. The scale of the action highlights how governments can now influence the digital landscape, especially when platforms operate within their borders. However, Meta’s approach has sparked debate about accuracy, fairness, and free expression. Critics argue that large-scale account blocking can inadvertently silence legitimate users alongside harmful actors. Free Speech vs. Safety: A Delicate Balance Australia’s social media ban raises challenging questions about the balance between free expression and online safety. Supporters argue that strict enforcement is necessary to protect citizens, prevent the spread of dangerous misinformation, and curb online harassment. Critics warn that sweeping measures can unintentionally suppress legitimate voices, limit public debate, and give tech companies enormous power to decide what is acceptable. This tension is not unique to Australia—it reflects a global debate over how much control governments should have over online platforms. The Human and Technical Challenges Blocking over half a million accounts is no small feat. Meta relies on both automated systems and human moderators to identify content that violates laws. While technology can flag obvious violations, subtle issues like satire, context, and regional differences require human review. This raises questions about errors and fairness. Could legitimate accounts be blocked? How transparent is the process? Meta says it tries to balance compliance with user rights, but incidents of overreach or mistakes are almost inevitable at this scale. International Implications Australia’s social media ban is likely to influence other countries considering stricter regulation of digital platforms. Governments in Europe, Asia, and North America are watching closely to see how social media companies respond to legal pressure. The action by Meta signals to regulators worldwide that tech giants can and will comply with national laws, even when it involves mass enforcement. At the same time, it highlights the challenges of global platforms operating under multiple jurisdictions, each with different legal and cultural standards. Meta’s Broader Strategy Meta’s large-scale blocking of accounts is part of a broader strategy to adapt to increasing regulation worldwide. Over the past few years, governments have enacted laws targeting misinformation, online harassment, hate speech, and data privacy. Companies like Meta face a delicate balancing act: comply with local laws, protect users, and maintain global platform consistency. Australia’s enforcement highlights how reactive and adaptive tech companies must become in a rapidly changing regulatory landscape. Public Reaction and Controversy The public reaction has been mixed. Many Australians support strong measures to curb online harm, especially after high-profile cases of online abuse or misinformation. At the same time, some worry about overreach, censorship, and the lack of transparency in mass account blocking. Social media users, advocacy groups, and legal experts are calling for clearer guidelines and appeals processes, so that users whose accounts were mistakenly blocked can have their voices restored. This conversation is likely to intensify as governments continue to regulate online speech more aggressively. Looking Ahead: What This Means for Social Media Australia’s social media ban—and Meta’s response—marks a turning point in the regulation of online platforms. Governments now have tools to enforce compliance, while social media companies must adapt quickly or face legal consequences. For users, it signals a changing landscape where content is increasingly monitored and regulated. For companies, it demonstrates the high stakes of non-compliance and the operational challenges of moderating millions of accounts worldwide. The broader implication is clear: social media is no longer a free-for-all environment. National laws, safety concerns, and global scrutiny now dictate how platforms operate, shaping the way millions of people interact online. Final Thoughts Meta’s blocking of 550,000 accounts under Australia’s social media ban is a powerful example of how governments and tech companies are grappling with the complexities of online regulation. Balancing safety, legality, and free expression is a high-stakes challenge that will only grow as the digital landscape evolves. For Australia, it is a test of regulatory power. For Meta, it is a test of operational capacity and ethical responsibility. And for users worldwide, it is a reminder that the rules of the online world are changing—and that compliance, safety, and governance now shape how we experience social media every day.
By Muhammad Hassana day ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.