A leader desperately clinging onto power and fearful of the whispers of the people will inevitably enact repressive measures to restrict free speech - and it's therefore no surprise that the doomed May has gone down the Ceauscescu path with proposals contained in the Online Harms White Paper for widespread government censorship of the internet.
She is supported by her sinister Grand Vizier Sajid Javid and by Labour's Noncefinder General, Tom Watson - whose credulity in giving his support to criminal fantasists who flung accusations of paedo assault against the wholly innocent matches only his deep Socialist support of any measures that restrict free speech and repress democratic freedom.
The way they're going to do it is this. First they establish their ability to impose swingeing penalties on the online service providers - Facebook, Twitter, Google (the host of this blog). Then they task these firms with implementing government censorship requirements or risk even greater penalties. For blogs such as this, the duty will not be simply to remove censored content when notified but to act proactively to identify those blogs likely to offend the government and close them down in advance. With MPs whining like babies about people being rude about them, you can be sure they'll include censorship of political criticism in a government-imposed list of censored blog content including (Chapter 7)
Guidance to companies to outline what activity and material constitutes hateful content, including that which is a hate crime, or where not necessarily illegal, content that may directly or indirectly cause harm to other users – for example, in some cases of bullying, or offensive material. (my underlining)In other words, anyone the government wants can now become a 'protected group' under censorship law - including MPs, the patrician establishment, the betrayer civil service, scum corporate globalists, mutton-headed Whitehall dags and plod chiefs, the EU capos ..
Neither will blogs be able to remind readers for example of Yvette Cooper's home flipping or her mendacious pledge to house migrants in one of her homes -
Being harassed online can be upsetting and frightening, and online harassment can amount to a criminal offence. Far too many people, from public figures to schoolchildren, have experienced this kind of behaviour.Yep - non-criminal, wholly lawful 'harassment' of public figures will also cause Google to censor blogs under May's Ceaucescu Law . Take a look at this - it may be the last time you see it
(Information) can harm us in many different ways, encouraging us to make decisions that could damage our health, undermining our respect and tolerance for each other and confusing our understanding of what is happening in the wider world. It can also damage our trust in our democratic institutions, including ParliamentOh boy - so it's blogs that damage our trust in Parliament - not Parliament's betrayal of democracy or corrupt MPs as I previously described them as denizens of Dante's eighth malbolge - pimps, seducers, flatterers dipped in human shit, liars, fornicators, barrators, perjurers, corrupt office-holders, half-wit frauds and peculators. And I can name at least three of each. And have candid photos of one (widely circulated on the net) who importuned another pervert to shit on him.
As even the 'Daily Remain' comments
Tory MP and former Culture Secretary John Whittingdale, writing at the weekend, was completely justified in warning that the proposals risk dragging Britain into a 'draconian censorship regime' more akin to China, Russia or North Korea. No other Western democratic state has countenanced similarly far-reaching controls.Government censorship of blogs, FB and Twitter will be wide ranging, using the government's own tame Ministry of Truth agencies including the BBC - and even forcing GFT to push BBC pro-government propaganda onto users;
May, Javid and the Red Tories have truly become globalist dags and tools of the Socialists. The Noncefinder General and his Marxist capo must be rubbing their hands with glee.
- The steps companies should take in their terms of service to make clear what constitutes disinformation, the expectations they have of users, and the penalties for violating those terms of service.
- Steps that companies should take in relation to users who deliberately misrepresent their identity to spread and strengthen disinformation.
- Making content which has been disputed by reputable fact-checking services less visible to users.
- Using fact-checking services, particularly during election periods.
- Promoting authoritative news sources.
- Promoting diverse news content, countering the ‘echo chamber’ in which people are only exposed to information which reinforces their existing views.
OK, I suggest any readers with any interest in freedom investigate using Tor and Signal.If this repressive authoritarian shite becomes law, we're going underground.
33 comments:
Let's not overlook that Zuckerberg was suggesting just the other day that Governments should act to provide rules so companies like his would know what was acceptable. He didn't actually say it in those words but it was close. When Zuckerberg encourages State censorship so he doesn't run the risk of censoring the "wrong things" or not censoring "enough things", it should be pretty clear to everyone that social media, rather than opening up knowledge and debate, has delivered the gormless and the stupid - bound and trussed - to the maw of Big State governance.
When Javid first appeared on the political scene, I thought he might be a refreshing change; a man who's actually worked for a living. Instead he's just another authoritarian little bully boy, as morally corrupt as all the rest of them.
Judgement of Javid +1
Blogs and social media sites are ways for people to discharge their anger - the creation of the keyboard warriors.
To remove this safety valve is to bottle up those frustrations and give rise to alternativce means of release - historically these end up being a lot more personal, physical, pro-active etc
If the Government wants to turn keyboards into petrol bombs then they are going the right way about it.
As I've said before, it takes only ONE person to shut-down major infrastructure these days.
I previously described them as denizens of Dante's eighth malbolge - pimps, seducers, flatterers dipped in human shit, liars, fornicators, barrators, perjurers, corrupt office-holders, half-wit frauds and peculators.-Raed
Hold on, aren't these the very 'people' (I use the word in its loosest possible sense) you DEMAND be further empowered and be subjected to even less judicial oversight? Must be a brexiter 'freedom' thing, i suppose and above my paygrade cos I just can't understand why anyone would think a givernment that is willing to remove 'citizenship' rights and legal protections from its own citizens would be in any way 'libertarian'....that Captain, is illogical.
It did not end well for Ceauscescu .....
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HApacB0i7C0/hqdefault.jpg)
I remember reading on a so called "conspiracy" site a couple of years ago that the sort of things you mention would be coming in the future. The message was that all of the ready made platforms would only be allowed to exist if they conformed and the only answer was to have your own IP address, from a place such as Iceland
@ Dave_G 08:06 Exactly, it's the same with the yellow vests in France they are showing their anger in public. One can hardly be more noticeable than by wearing Hi Vis, and being with a crowd of thousands similarly attired.
The final eventuality will be when they throw away the vests, drop off the interweb, stop carrying/using cell phones and split into small autonomous groups.
Jack,
Correct me if I"m wrong here but I assume you are referring to this European "citizenship".
If you are, the "citizenship rights and legal protections" are not ones I asked for, particularly want and I can't see what they do for me as I have no particular desire to live or work in the EU.
@Jack Ketch
I have never voted for an EU to be the guardian of my 'citizenship' - I didn't want the EU's citizenship in the first place.
Neither do I recall giving the EU permission to be the arbiters of what rights I may or may not have; nor do I recall giving the EU permission to scrutinise laws passed in our Houses of Parliament.
Not much for this thing called 'Democracy', are you?
Raedwald, you know full well that what you write is distortion, caricature, and myth, but being the cynic that you are, you happily publish in that knowledge.
So, your codswallop might be down-rated by search engines in future, and you protest rather too much, I feel.
Provided those setting the criterions are a peer-appointed, representative panel, then this could be a Good Thing. That's a big "if", mind.
Olly - you're full of shit, but I still publish your ignorant speciosity. Don't you want this repressive government to allow me to have the freedom to do so in future?
Let's wait and see what the analysts whose opinions we respect have to say about it over the next weeks before rushing to judgement, eh?
More shite Ketch. Three journos have been murdered in the last 3 years trying to look into EU/Mafia corruption links. So don't come shilling for the honesty and good intent of EU scum. Treason May IS EU scum.
As are you.
I have never voted for an EU to be the guardian of my 'citizenship' - I didn't want the EU's citizenship in the first place.-Anon
Which is immaterial to the point. There are bits of my EU Citizenship I didn't ask for, don't want and cannot ever see myself using (for example my right to vote in the EU elections). My point is that it behoves not Leavers to grizzle about a government acting in a manner that wouldn't be out of place in any dictatorship you could care to name, when for the last 3 years they, Leavers, have been demanding the government do precisely that. Leavers applauded when the government rode/tried to ride rough shod over our democratic institutions, leavers maligned those very bodies set there to protect our rights; leavers demanded (and still do) that the PM appropriate more authority from the HoC than any PM has had since that notable libertarian Cromwell (and yes I know he wasn't the PM).
Leavers wanted a government that would disenfranchise the entire population, that would strip us all, whether we wanted them or not, of our defacto 2nd Citizenship, that would take away our '4 freedoms'. You, leavers demanded an authoritative regime. You know what they say about 'be careful what you wish for'.
So don't come shilling for the honesty and good intent of EU scum.
-Mr X
I didn't and they are neither honest nor good. Infact as you know only too well I agree with you , for example, about Art.13. However I admit to some schadenfreude at seeing Leavers getting what they whinged on and on about wanting. When Jarvid has you arrested for saying something online not-quite positive about the RoP, maybe then Leavers will understand just what they have wrought. People used to be upset by my putting sig runes in the word 'Brexsshite'...
ack
Jack
AFAIK The only right of which you're being deprived is the right to sponge on another nation's health and welfare provision, to be brutal. And we have to do that to stop non-UK citizens from doing the same to us.
All your other 'rights' are unaffected; you will be able to travel, live, work, marry, procreate or whatever anywhere in the EU just as you were before 1973. Brits have been 'citizens of Europe' for two centuries or more and I suspect much longer
The only difference being that if you want to stay for more than 3 months in most places you must prove you can support yourself and I suspect also pay for med insurance.
A government that would disenfranchise the entire population.
Yes, it's called the EU and this is what leavers voted specifically against.
All your other 'rights' are unaffected; you will be able to travel, live, work, marry, procreate or whatever anywhere in the EU just as you were before 1973.
No,that argument is merely a sticking plaster for the consciences of the more brexity, something they can tell themselves at night. If my 'rights' were really to be unaffected then there would be absolutely no point in Brexit at all, would there?
At the moment I have a 'right' to live, die, work etc in any member state and that member state can only kick me out or deny me residency with a good reason -and I have the right to contest that. After Brexit those member states can choose to allow me residency etc or not.
You wanted a government that implements the The Will Of The People (Volkswille), a government that declares 60 odd million people unEUmenschen, you can't really complain when they then start to trample over those rights you did care about. And who is going to, post brexit, stop this grievous assault on our traditional right to Freedom of Expression? The House Of Lords that Leavers have DEMANDED be replaced by even more politicians? Our Supreme court whose judges are in the parlance of brexiteers "traitors" who should be hanged for their treason?
As far as support for EU membership goes...... is that all you've got Jack?
For £10bn (nett) annually?
Piss poor VFM.
Jack
Life is about obligations as well as rights; you have an obligation to support yourself and if you want a family them as well, for as far as you are able. And yes, membership of most societies - which is what Residency allows - is largely conditional on discharging that obligation.
which is what Residency allows - is largely conditional on discharging that obligation.
I agree with that sentiment but as far as I can see you're saying, in essence ,correct me if i'm wrong, "inorder to ensure Johnny Foreigner, what hasn't paid in, doesn't come over 'ere and abuse our NHS-envy of the world that she is- the government has to deprive us all of our EU freedoms"? Which is fine but don't act all outraged when that government wants to trample on your rights because the Will Of The Sheeple demands it.
"We want the government to censor what we say on the interweb"
Said no-one, ever.
It's entirely for the benefit of the privileged patrician elite; I reckon they've been waiting for nearly a year for a photogenic schoolgirl to top herself because of Facebook abuse to launch it at the most advantegeous moment.
It's the 'Hacked off' approach; campaign using some misused Council-house Mum to secure changes that benefit the mega-wealthy international nasal marching powder set.
As far as support for EU membership goes...... is that all you've got Jack? -DG
Did I make any argument for EU membership? If so I apologise, this wasn't supposed to be thread championing the EU (never an easy task) but rather my enjoying
the squeals of the oh-so-libertarian Brexiteurs who are suddenly beginning to realise what they voted for. Not very adult of me, or even British, to be sure but laughs are few and far between atm.
It's entirely for the benefit of the privileged patrician elite;
No doubt, and enabled by brexiteers. Again I say; you wanted the government to strip away rights and protections from us (whether you perceive them as such or not), you can't be surprised when the elite do the same. They got to be at the top of the pile for a reason (excluding the accident of birth of course).
As an update, it looks like the EU have said that the UK can probably have its long extension, but if it installed some clown as a PM, who tried to mess up EU business in the meantime, then it would fall out with No Deal there and then.
You might say that's what you want, but I think that it would be a Moment Of Truth for any of the serial liars to date, who found themselves in that position.
So your terms of access to the web look to be unaffected for a while yet.
"Did I make any argument for EU membership"
Er, yes.
If this is you laughing Jack, I wouldn't like to see you when you're angry (trousers shredded and turning green - or should that be blue with gold stars?)
You are a shite machine Ketch.
Yes we have lots of problems with boss class scum in the UK. They are the same scum as infest the EU. That is why they are literally desperate to REMAIN in cahoots with their fellow scumbags. They know us vs 28 gangs of turds =we lose. On their own vs an increasingly awake public--ie Brexit--THEY lose.
Ketch if perchance we do get a no deal brexit, I hereby promise that I will pay your fare across the channel (T&C single, hand baggage only, written promise not to come back). You love them so much, go there.
**************************************************************************************
@ Olly 10:56 I don't know what fully insulated, cotton wool shrouded PC world you live in. The blog owner is so timid and middle of the road that I have in the past honestly thought and made the accusation that this place was a limited hangout for globalism.
I don't publish deliberate lies, and I don't want the freedom to do so. Why would anyone, unless they have a dark purpose?
Oh, you mean lies like
"We will do what you decide"
"Brexit means Brexit"
"No deal is better than a bad deal"
And Labour and Conservative parties fraudulently scamming votes by lying in their 2017 manifestos about implementing Brexit? When half the lying scum of their MPs who smiled those insincere promises haven't turned a hair in betraying their electors?
Or maybe you just don't like the real lies being exposed
I think you hate the truth, Olly.
"(Information) can harm us in many different ways, encouraging us to make decisions that could damage our health, undermining our respect and tolerance for each other and confusing our understanding of what is happening in the wider world."
The sheer hypocrisy of that quote infuriates. "respect and tolerance" went out the window on 26 March 2006 in Scotland.
And their answer to our understanding... wider world was to ban Press TV from freeview and most satellites. Same as Saudi would love to obliterate Al Jazeera.
They loathe being exposed as lying, manipulative legends in their own minds.
I said "I don't knowingly publish lies" not "leaders of mainstream parties don't knowingly publish lies", Raedwald.
Why should search IT not favour the truth over lies though, where it can easily discern the difference? E.g. if a fake stats site misrepresented immigration figures etc.?
Lying to the people should be a far more serious matter than lying even to Parliament, but it is the stock-in-trade of the British Establishment - the real one, that is, not Farage's silly fiction.
"No one is thinking of leaving the Single Market" etc.
And you're credulous enough to trust the government and its pet agencies the BBC and the Guardian to determine truth from lie?
"The EU costs us £350m a week" - condemned in the Remoaner press including the Berlaymont Broadcasting Corporation as a lie but as the Foreign Secretary said later
'The controversial claim that the UK sends £350m a week to the EU was a "gross underestimate", Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has said.
He told the Guardian the UK's contribution was already £362m a week and would rise to £438m by the end of the post-Brexit transition period.'
The White Paper is pure authoritarian repressive censorship and we have NO reason to trust a word the government, the civil service, parliament or ministers say. They are all proven liars - and they would ALL be banned from saying anything if this proposal were applied fairly.
No, I don't trust the government.
It would, if it could, under cover of all the apple-pie-and-motherhood, exert the very maximum of control that it could, as it has done to date with other law, e.g. anti-terrorist.
What I am saying is that the principle of a peer-monitored system, which, say, assists searches, where feasible, to down-prioritise utter bollocks would not be bad on the face of it.
@Jack Ketch
The problem I have is this - if the EU wishes to be regarded as the champion of rights (and I'll suppose that will include democratic rights) shouldn't they use democratic principles as a base starting point?
I became politicised by the Lisbon Treaty.
Now I can blame my government for not doing things like Lisbon democratically, but shouldn't the EU have encouraged that each EU member government consult its people?
I have used the word "encouraged" - if I had used 'required', I would have had the usual "EU isn't a tyrant" garbage.
Brexit is not just about freeing ourselves from a political EU; it is trying to rebalance power back to where it belongs - the people.
Politicians don't change - they achieve power and create more institutions to broaden and consolidate that power.
Ridding ourselves of EU political interference gives us the ability to tackle abuses of power head on - just as this country has been doing for hundreds of years.
The EU has been the most regressive step taken when it comes to the people taking on our government.
And when an EU clown steps forward and claims to be responsible for my 'rights' I will calmly - and justifiably - tell them to "kindly **** off".
Post a Comment