The evils of the new 'Online Safety Bill'.. Are you ready for TOTAL censorship in the UK?

Hi ATS,

Especially I want to address this thread to our UK members & all dedicated ATS lurkers out there who live in the UK, because recent changes to legislation off the back of the Online Safety Bill have the effect of criminalising YOU for posting or commenting on what many would formerly have been considered NON-ISSUES..

The UK communications regulator 'OFCOM' is now in charge of overseeing compliance with stringent new offences & processes which will be put in place by social media & tech giants - but they will have so many new powers, against so many who would not have formerly been considered criminals, that this appears to be nothing less than the government (read: World Economic Forum) blanket ban hammer coming down hard on EVERYONE who believes in ONLINE FREEDOM. Those who are present in other Western hemisphere nations such as the USA, other nations in Europe, etc, are bound to be interested also, as what is happening here in the UK is merely one tendril of the overall worldwide strategic outlaying of the Great Reset; that is to say, UN Agenda 2030.

Most of you will be aware of the recent Russell Brand/ Rumble.com controversy, in which the UK government essentially demanded that the comedian & social commentator be demonetised (as in, take away his means to earn a living) on the platforms of YouTube, Rumble & TikTok. Naturally, YouTube immediately demonetised his account. Because it's YouTube, and they're on board with the plan of the globalists. TikTok simply stated that Brand doesn't make any money from his 2,200,000 followers on the platform, neatly sidestepping the issue. Rumble adamantly refused to demonetise him and proceeded to complain vociferously that the UK government shouldn't have the power to bring a man to ruin based on unproven allegations from over a decade prior which haven't even been formulated as criminal charges yet.

Since writing a thread about the matter I've come across more information which is deeply disturbing, which actually led me to go back over my Facebook posts of the last two years to reove any posts in which I was 'fact-checked' by the algorithm because of my views related to COVID & my anti-government stance on certain issues.

Why did I do this? Well, simply because someone in the government has come forward to suggest that anyone who is fact-checked for 'misinformation' on social media channels should be ARRESTED by the UK police & charged under the malicious communications act. This is a horrifying development - even as a dedicated 'anarchist-libertarian', I am not in a position in which I could conceivably cope with a cynical & quite possibly brutal arrest for posting comments regarding the government's COVID policy on my only existing social media account (which I maintain solely to connect with family & church friends). I'm disabled & suffer severe chronic pain, requiring regular medications & many adjustments for comfort in the course of a day, being mostly bed-bound. This means I wouldn't cope at all with the trauma of being arrested/ jailed. So sadly, I've had to delete a bunch of important, informative posts which I would much rather have stayed in place.

Anyway, the Online Safety Bill, to be 'policed' by OFCOM, starts the ball rolling by claiming that it's all about protecting children. Which, in part, it is. And who could complain about that, right? Except it goes far beyond basic control measures to protect children & vulnerable individuals.

The report also recommends that a wide range of new criminal offences should be created, based on proposals from the Law Commission, and carried in the bill, including:

- Promoting or "stirring up" violence against women, or based on gender or disability
- Knowingly distributing seriously harmful misinformation
- Content "promoting self-harm" should be made illegal
- "Cyber-flashing" - the sending of unwanted naked images - should be illegal
- So should deliberately sending flashing images to those with epilepsy, with the goal of causing a seizure

Mr Collins said these changes would "bring more offences clearly within the scope of the Online Safety Bill, give Ofcom the power in law to set minimum safety standards for the services they will regulate, and to take enforcement action against companies if they don't comply".

BBC covers a new parliamentary report detailing problems involved with the Online Safety Bill proposed by Nadine Dorries, written when she was the UK Digital Secretary/ she is now the Secretary of State

I was quite surprised that the BBC didn't go in hammer & tongs to rail against those who will reject the most recent report on the basis that it undermines free speech & puts ordinary people at risk of being criminalised simply for sharing something on social media. There is, however, a real risk that people who post something that triggers a fact-check on social media (when your post generates a little pop-up banner describing the fact-check) could have the prospect of being arrested by the police as described above. Whether that would result in criminal charges is another matter. It seems likely that, at least in the first stages, it would be a case of 'process as punishment', whereby the 'offender' is subject to a stressful 12-24 hour process of arrest, booking, overnight in a cell, needing a solicitor to get out in the morning, etc. They would be traumatised sufficiently by that 12-24 hour process that they likely would never post anything controversial ever again. James Corbett details some such issues based on COVID protestor arrests which went viral at the time back in 2020-2022... None of them ended up being charged. The process was the punishment. COVID protestors - where are they now?

Here is the part of the BBC article which highlights the major problem with the Online Safety Bill:

- Knowingly distributing seriously harmful misinformation

That is so ambiguous as to be laughable if it weren't so serious a situation. As the BBC article author points out:

Ms Dorries' sweeping powers in the first draft should also be limited, the report says. It argues the draft bill's definition of "illegal content" is "too dependent on the discretion of the secretary of state".

At least even the BBC are drawing attention to this matter. If anything, knowledge is power, and so the knowledge that there is a chance that your posts will draw attention to you in a climate in which the government is being heavy-handed on issues connected to protesting the government/ the WEF agenda, Agenda 2030, etc, means that you will know in your heart & mind where & when & how to apply pressure to get your points across when protesting in the digital arena. I have a feeling this whole thing is being put through in an understated manner, so they can entrap people to score points with the globalists when they feel the need to clamp down on protests. People will be so underprepared that they will accidentally put themselves in the crosshairs by commenting in a reactive manner against some item of 'news' which pops up on the social media feed.

As for me, I will be sticking to real world protests as much as I can in light of my health - 'Rebels on Roundabouts' here we come!

If someone doesn't like their social platform's TOS or censoring algorithms, which probably use empirical scientific evidence and not opinion or conspiracy theories, then go somewhere else.

a reply to: quintessentone

This isn't about which social media platform you use. It's going to be a blanket ban on the internet access period. This bill will also encompass any sort of digital medium you can think of. VPN or not.

The only way around this is to literally use mailing shots via the postal service.

Asides that, why when you say 'conspiracy theory' you're probably thinking of the flat earthers and other such beliefs. This isn't about that, it's more about ANYTHING the powers at be deem to be against their wishes. Y'know, like a police state. I speak and you must listen and obey - NO QUESTION - you must obey ---- even if you know it's complete bullsh*t.

originally posted by: MCurns
a reply to: quintessentone

This isn't about which social media platform you use. It's going to be a blanket ban on the internet access period. This bill will also encompass any sort of digital medium you can think of. VPN or not.

The only way around this is to literally use mailing shots via the postal service.

Asides that, why when you say 'conspiracy theory' you're probably thinking of the flat earthers and other such beliefs. This isn't about that, it's more about ANYTHING the powers at be deem to be against their wishes. Y'know, like a police state. I speak and you must listen and obey - NO QUESTION - you must obey ---- even if you know it's complete bullsh*t.

Who really has the censoring power in social media? #1 Sponsors #2 audience ... simple as that.

originally posted by: quintessentone
If someone doesn't like their social platform's TOS or censoring algorithms, which probably use empirical scientific evidence and not opinion or conspiracy theories, then go somewhere else.

Yeah, 'probably use' empirical scientific evidence, I'm sure that is a probability. Why would they do anything else?

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: quintessentone
If someone doesn't like their social platform's TOS or censoring algorithms, which probably use empirical scientific evidence and not opinion or conspiracy theories, then go somewhere else.

Yeah, 'probably use' empirical scientific evidence, I'm sure that is a probability. Why would they do anything else?

All you have to do is read their TOC and if you don't like it you are free to leave and find somewhere else (echo chamber) that caters to your particular brand of reality or desired behaviour.

a reply to: quintessentone

You're still missing the point.....

I'll try and spell it out

THE GOVERNMENT WILL DECIDE WHATS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE AND THE PLATFORMS WILL ACQUIESCE.

If the software operating companies do not follow the guidance by the government then they will be switched off. NO BUSINESS FOR THEM, NO ONLINE PRESENCE. THEY WILL GET PROSECUTED IF THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES.

Do you really think the media companies will have the final say?

This online safety bill will make a VPN irrelavent.

I hope you understand this now.

Eventually, if it works in the UK it won't take too long for other countries to follow suit. Then you can say goodbye to ATS, FB, Insta, and the myriad of others from from where ever you are in the world

a reply to: MCurns

But the government always knows what's best for the people.
Isn't that why we pay them, to keep our best interest in mind?

a reply to: Stopstealingmycountry

Indeed........ we all know this and it's been forced upon us. Russell was the the diversion to give creedance to the veracity of the bill. BUT the way in which it is worded is very loose and will encompass everything as detailed in the ops original post.

The UK is f*cked.

originally posted by: MCurns
a reply to: quintessentone

You're still missing the point.....

I'll try and spell it out

THE GOVERNMENT WILL DECIDE WHATS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE AND THE PLATFORMS WILL ACQUIESCE.

If the software operating companies do not follow the guidance by the government then they will be switched off. NO BUSINESS FOR THEM, NO ONLINE PRESENCE. THEY WILL GET PROSECUTED IF THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES.

Do you really think the media companies will have the final say?

This online safety bill will make a VPN irrelavent.

I hope you understand this now.

Eventually, if it works in the UK it won't take too long for other countries to follow suit. Then you can say goodbye to ATS, FB, Insta, and the myriad of others from from where ever you are in the world

I didn't miss your point, I just don't agree with it in it's entirety.

Media companies do have the final say which won't be directed by government (see Rumble) but by their sponsors and their audiences...a.k.a. their bread and butter.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment
From what I have read of the bill so far,its the kind of thing Stalin or Mao would have had wet dreams over.
Neil Ward did an informative video about it which put in another thread.


One part he speaks off seems highly authoritarian-If you use 10 or so of the biggest social media sites-stuff like instagram/FB/Linkdin you automatically give the UK government real time access to EVERYTHING on your device-photos,email,any messages,location.

Then there is the "approved government software" thing-internet companies must install this software to aloow the governement to monitor everything.Even companies outside the UK..
Don't comply? Your site gets banned from UK,added to a blacklist.

Then there is the encrytion aspect-banning apps such as Whatsapp from using encryption-don't comply-see above,but also whatsapp would be fined -£10 Million-Oh and If you are a USER of such a website you can get 6months in jail and a fine.

Welcome to North Korea,UK.


I was genuinely amazed at how much support this bill got in the other thread..hopefully people will read more into it and discover it is a censorship,mass surveillance and control operation and not to "protect the children" as the governemnt claims.

a reply to: quintessentone

?????????

All you have to do is read their TOC and if you don't like it you are free to leave and find somewhere else (echo chamber) that caters to your particular brand of reality or desired behaviour.

This line says you don't understand the bigger implications...........

I'm done with trying to explain.........

have a nice day

This bill has been worked on for a while and this is why it was needed in the first place:

The Online Safety Bill started with a document called the “Online Harms White Paper,” which was unveiled way back in April 2019 by then-digital minister Jeremy Wright. The death of Molly Russell by suicide in 2017 brought into sharp relief the dangers of children being able to access content relating to self-harm and suicide online, and other events like the Cambridge Analytica scandal had created the political impetus to do something to regulate big online platforms.

www.theverge.com...

What was the Cambridge Analytica scandal you ask?

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Orwellian.

And it's sad to see people applaud it.

originally posted by: MCurns
a reply to: quintessentone

?????????

All you have to do is read their TOC and if you don't like it you are free to leave and find somewhere else (echo chamber) that caters to your particular brand of reality or desired behaviour.

This line says you don't understand the bigger implications...........

I'm done with trying to explain.........

have a nice day

Your bigger implications may never manifest, so worrying without cause or fearmongering comes to mind.

a reply to: quintessentone
Why does the Cambridge Anylitica debacle require the government to have access to everything on everyones devices?
And why does that require 6 month jail terms for anyone who uses an encryption app?

It doesn't.Its a huge authoritarian power grab by the government-who by the way are adept at the use of misinformation themselves.Remember how effective they told us the damn vaccines were? That was misinformation as there was literally no such data at the time.

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
a reply to: quintessentone
Why does the Cambridge Anylitica debacle require the government to have access to everything on everyones devices?
And why does that require 6 month jail terms for anyone who uses an encryption app?

It doesn't.Its a huge authoritarian power grab by the government-who by the way are adept at the use of misinformation themselves.Remember how effective they told us the damn vaccines were? That was misinformation as there was literally no such data at the time.

I rather think that the people affected were somewhat outraged and maybe that would be a reason why government might want to intervene...no?

Facebook sent a message to those users believed to be affected, saying the information likely included one's "public profile, page likes, birthday and current city".[41] Some of the app's users gave the app permission to access their News Feed, timeline, and messages.[42] The data was detailed enough for Cambridge Analytica to create psychographic profiles of the subjects of the data.[36] The data also included the locations of each person.[36] For a given political campaign, each profile's information suggested what type of advertisement would be most effective to persuade a particular person in a particular location for some political event.[wikipedia]

a reply to: quintessentone

Your bigger implications may never manifest, so worrying without cause or fearmongering comes to mind.

Nope, not at all..... like I tried to explain to you on a previous thread....

The laws are carefully worded, so there is no wriggle room for a good lawyer to get people off of the hook. If this was about just kids and online harm then it would say kids and online harm. Watch the video above and you might get a gist too what has happened.

thats it no more, i really shouldn't of done this..... i feel like i'm beating my head up against a brickwall with someone watching the paint dry........

originally posted by: MCurns
a reply to: quintessentone

Your bigger implications may never manifest, so worrying without cause or fearmongering comes to mind.

Nope, not at all..... like I tried to explain to you on a previous thread....

The laws are carefully worded, so there is no wriggle room for a good lawyer to get people off of the hook. If this was about just kids and online harm then it would say kids and online harm. Watch the video above and you might get a gist too what has happened.

thats it no more, i really shouldn't of done this..... i feel like i'm beating my head up against a brickwall with someone watching the paint dry........

When government insists on a backdoor to these sites for policing purposes, get back to me.

a reply to: quintessentone
"I rather think that the people affected were somewhat outraged and maybe that would be a reason why government might want to intervene...no?"

So because one company was creating potential election interferance/misinfo-everyone in the UK must be put under 24/7 digital surveillance and blanket banned from certain websites?

I am not seeing the logic.