censorship – Hellbound and Down

China Begins Banning AI Videos That ‘Vulgarize’ Regime-Approved Media

China’s National Radio and Television Administration (NRTA) announced on Monday that the state-run China Central Television (CCTV) has overseen the deletion of some 8,000 AI-altered videos from online platforms.

The videos were censored because they “distort, parody, or vulgarize classic Chinese films and television dramas and animated works.”

China’s state-run Global Times unironically relayed the triumphant announcement by two organs of the oppressive Communist government congratulating each other for doing a great job at censorship:

The NRTA has instructed major online audiovisual platforms to further strengthen their primary responsibility, enhance routine monitoring and screening efforts, and focus on removing non-compliant AI-altered videos that alter or distort classic film and television works based on the Four Great Classical Novels of Chinese literature, historical themes, revolutionary themes, and exemplary heroic figures.

Platforms have also been directed to remove various forms of disturbing or inappropriate animated content to continuously foster a healthy online audiovisual environment, CCTV reported.

According to the NRTA, the campaign specifically targets three categories of non-compliant videos including the AI-altered content that seriously distorts the original spirit and character portrayals of the source material, content that promotes graphic violence or vulgarity, and content that misappropriates or alters Chinese cultural elements in ways that lead to distorted historical understanding.

The Global Times gave the example of Lin Daiyu, the main character from an 18th-century romance novel called Dream of the Red Chamber, being inappropriately portrayed as a “violent combat character.”

Keep reading

“It’s All So Tiresome”: UK’s Social Media Ban Trudges Ever Onward

The UK government’s “consultation” on social media harm is over, and – brace yourselves – it turns out they’re going to have to do something about it.

I know, I was shocked too.

The main talking point is that “social media is like cigarettes”. Everyone is saying that, it’s the meme of the day.

It’s a sentiment originally taken from a new report submitted to the consultation by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges.

Titled “Growing up in an online world”, it contains this hilarious line in the foreword:

…there is, I think, an overwhelming consensus that excessive screen time can harm children and young people and we need to call this out unflinchingly rather than passively wait for someone else to prove causation”.

Which is a pretty neat summary of how our political system works in general, and certainly in this case: We don’t know if there’s even a problem yet, but by God we’re gonna do something about it.

That the something they end up doing makes them rich and powerful is just one of the curious coincidences tyrants can always rely on.

{Sidenote: This morning the BBC had “Overwhelimg consensus” in their headline on this story, but at some point the absurdity of that quote was realised, and the headline changed. Now there’s this disclaimer near the end: “There is no consensus among the wider scientific community that screen time overall is harmful to children.” Funny stuff.}

Elsewhere, the report wails about “a wave of radicalized children” who pose “a real risk to society”, and calls social media “an incredibly powerful and uncontrolled commercial detriment to health”.

In a similar vein, The Guardian is warning of a “tsunami of harm”, and has assembled an all-star cast of interested parties to talk up the scariness of social media meanness.

After meeting with “bereaved parents” earlier today, Keir Starmer has “vowed to take action”.

Keep reading

Farage Referred for Potential Prosecution over Manchester Airport Comments: Report

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has been referred for potential prosecution over his public critiques of the British justice system amid the controversial Manchester Airport trial.

On Friday, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said that it would not be seeking a third re-trial against Muhammad Amaad, 26, and Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 21, over the alleged assault of Police Constable Zachary Marsden at Manchester Airport in July 2024, after two juries failed to come to a verdict. Amaaz was previously convicted of assaulting two female officers during the same incident, however.

The altercation initially sparked uproar after selectively edited footage was leaked to the press of PC Marsden apparently kicking one of the accused in the head. Further footage was later published, appearing to show a police woman having her nose broken during the incident, undercutting the initial public narrative, which had sparked unrest in the local Islamic community.

After months of public pressure, including Reform UK hiring attorneys to launch a private prosecution against the two brothers, the CPS charged Amaad and Amaaz over the incident.

However, the nearly five months taken before any prosecution, and the contrasting swift and unrelenting crackdown against the riots following the murder of three young girls at a Taylor Swift dance party in Southport, sparked accusations of unequal justice.

Among those making the critique were Nigel Farage, who said at the time that there was a “system of two-tier policing, under two-tier justice, under two-tier Keir.”

“You only have to look at the reluctance to prosecute those violent thugs in Manchester Airport who beat up the police officers,” he added. “It took months and months for any prosecution to be brought, and I suspect the reason that it happened is because Reform said if they didn’t, we would take out our own private prosecution.”

For such public comments, Judge Neil Flewitt KC referred Mr Farage to Attorney General Lord Hermer for potential criminal prosecution, claiming the statements may have amounted to contempt of court.

“I took the view that the observation made by Nigel Farage was potentially a contempt of court as it implied the guilt of the defendants,” Judge Flewitt wrote, according to The Telegraph.

“As Nigel Farage is a well-known politician with a considerable following and whose public utterances attract a lot of attention, I decided to refer the matter to the Attorney General so that he could consider whether there should be a prosecution for contempt of court.”

However, the judge said that he did not believe that the Reform chief’s comments would “adversely affect the fairness of the trial”.

Responding to reports of the prosecution referral, Mr Farage said on Friday: “It’s quite clear that our judiciary is in an even worse state than I imagined. The politicisation of the courts will end under a Reform government.”

Reform UK shadow Home Secretary Zia Yusuf accused Judge Flewitt of presiding over a “historic miscarriage of justice” in the Manchester Airport trial and said that a Reform government would remove “this unfit judge from office”.

The judge said in his written judgment that Mr Farage’s intervention, “however unwelcome, would not adversely affect the fairness of the trial”.

Keep reading

EU-Backed Appeals Center Accidentally Confirms the DSA Censorship Regime Is Unworkable

A body set up to make Europe’s content censorship regime work has accidentally documented why it doesn’t.

Appeals Centre Europe, an Ireland-certified dispute settlement outfit operating under the EU’s Digital Services Act, released its second transparency report this week.

The numbers it published describe a system failing in both directions at once, and they hand the case against laws like the DSA to anyone who wants it.

Let’s start with what the body found when it actually got to look at the disputed content. Across the year from April 2025 to March 2026, it disagreed with the platform’s call 59 percent of the time.

Break that down and the picture gets stranger. When users challenged content that platforms had deleted, the Appeals Centre sided with the user 52 percent of the time.

When users flagged content that the platforms had chosen to leave online, the body overturned that decision 63 percent of the time. The same companies are deleting things they shouldn’t and keeping up things the regime says they should remove, often in the same reporting period.

The machinery the DSA built to produce correct moderation outcomes is producing roughly a coin flip. Legitimate posts get censored. The body reviewing the censorship then has to tell the platform to put them back. More than half the time, when it can see the evidence, it concludes the platform got it wrong.

The Appeals Centre received more than 24,000 disputes over the year, with eligible cases arriving nine times faster in March 2026 than in April 2025.

That is the scale of disagreement a single dispute body is fielding from across the EU. It is also a fraction of the moderation decisions these platforms make every day, which run to millions.

The DSA’s underlying premise is that platforms can review this firehose of human expression and arrive at defensible, appealable judgments about each piece. The error rate on the small sample anyone actually checks suggests the premise was never sound.

Then there is the question of whether any of it gets enforced and here the report stops being merely damning.

Account suspensions are where the system collapses outright. The Appeals Centre received more than 14,000 suspension disputes.

It managed to fully review fewer than 150 of them, because platforms would not hand over the content needed to assess the bans.

Keep reading

Belgian Remigration Activist Convicted of “Hate Speech” Over Factual Lecture on Migration, US State Slams Ruling

A controversial court ruling in Belgium is igniting outrage across Europe, after nationalist activist Dries Van Langenhove was convicted for delivering a lecture that cited crime statistics and criticized the impact of mass immigration—raising fresh concerns about the future of free speech on the continent.

The 33-year-old former member of parliament was found guilty by a Leuven court of “incitement to hatred” and “dissemination of ideas,” following a speech at KU Leuven in early 2024. Critics say the ruling sends a chilling message: even fact-based arguments can now be criminalized if they challenge the prevailing narrative.

Van Langenhove was fined €4,000 (approximately $4,300), adding to a growing list of legal penalties he has faced in recent years. He had previously been sentenced over content posted by others in a private group chat—an outcome his supporters say underscores a broader crackdown on dissent.

At the center of the case was a two-hour lecture that moved beyond its original topic to address migration, crime, and societal change. The speech touched on issues that millions of Europeans are increasingly concerned about—but which are often treated as taboo in official discourse.

Van Langenhove argued that mass immigration is linked to rising crime, housing shortages, and growing strain on public services. These claims, backed by statistics, formed the basis of the charges against him.

He also challenged the dominant explanation of inequality. Rather than accepting structural racism as the sole cause, he argued that differences between groups play a role—an argument widely debated but increasingly restricted in public forums.

“People are not equal, animals are not equal, plants are not equal,” he said during the lecture. The statement was seized upon by the court as evidence of wrongdoing.
Judges acknowledged that his statements were based on data and statistics. However, they ruled that presenting such facts in a way that could create a “hostile atmosphere” was sufficient to justify a conviction.

Crucially, the court made clear that direct incitement to violence was not required. It was enough, they argued, that speech could lead to a general sense of “intolerance.”

That standard, for critics, effectively dismantles meaningful free speech. It allows authorities to punish opinions based not on their truth, but on how they are perceived.

The ruling has reignited comparisons with the United States. Under the First Amendment, even controversial or offensive speech is protected unless it directly incites violence.

The U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Sarah B. Rogers, chimed in on the ruling, warning that policymakers worried about the rise of the so-called “far right” should stop criminalizing accurate, data-driven political speech about mass migration — as the Belgian court’s ruling against Dries Van Langenhove explicitly does. She argued that such prosecutions simply hand a monopoly on these issues to people willing to be labeled “racist,” giving them sole ownership of arguments that large segments of the public see as important and true.

Keep reading

Merkel Urges EU to Keep Regulating Social Media Speech

Angela Merkel used her first major European platform since leaving office to tell the EU exactly what it wanted to hear: keep regulating speech online, and don’t worry too much about getting it wrong.

The former German chancellor, speaking Tuesday at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, urged the bloc to “continue regulating the social media” and artificial intelligence. “To believe that responsibility for spreading information is no longer necessary, that accountability – there should be no accountability for lies, then that would undermine democracy,” she told the chamber.

Lies. Who decides what counts as a lie? In the EU’s model, that question gets answered by the European Commission, by government-appointed regulators, by “trusted flaggers” that platforms are legally required to obey. Not by courts. Not through anything resembling due process.

Merkel knows this system well. Her government built the prototype. Germany’s NetzDG law, passed under her chancellorship in 2017, required platforms to delete “clearly illegal” content within 24 hours or face fines up to €50 million.

The people whose speech got censored under it included a satirical magazine, a political street artist, and an opposition party leader. NetzDG became an export product, copied by governments in Russia, Turkey, and across Southeast Asia, each adapting it to their own definition of “illegal.”

The EU took the concept continent-wide with the Digital Services Act, which requires major platforms to assess and reduce “systemic risks,” a category broad enough to cover “civic discourse,” “electoral processes,” and “public security.”

The Commission writes the rules, decides whether platforms comply, and levies fines of up to 6% of global revenue when they don’t. No independent prosecutor. X is currently challenging the first DSA fine ever imposed, a €120 million penalty from December 2025, arguing the process involved “grave procedural errors” and “systematic breaches of rights of defence and basic due process.”

More than 50 European NGOs have warned that the DSA’s vague terms could violate the EU Charter’s own free expression protections. The Commission’s response was to declare the law “content-agnostic” and move on.

Merkel acknowledged none of this. She told parliamentarians that “perhaps mistakes will be made, but we learn through mistakes.” That’s cold comfort when the mistakes involve censoring legal speech and silencing political opposition through systems with no judicial oversight and no meaningful appeal.

Her remarks came at the inaugural ceremony for the European Order of Merit, where she was honored alongside 19 other laureates, including Lech Wałęsa, Moldovan President Maia Sandu, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. She framed regulation as essential to democracy. “We’ve had 75 years of European thought,” she said. “Peace, prosperity, and democracy.”

Keep reading

Canada’s Military Punished Whistleblowers Who Flagged Illegal COVID Speech Monitoring

The Canadian Armed Forces reprimanded soldiers who warned that an order to spy on citizens during COVID-19 could violate intelligence-gathering rules. The soldiers were right. The military punished them anyway.

Internal records and emails obtained by CBC News show that on March 11, 2020, a team called Joint Operational Effects (JOE) was ordered to create anonymous social media accounts and scour the internet for information about Canadians.

Under the direction of Col. Chris Henderson, the team produced dozens of reports between March 19 and June 5, tracking what the federal Conservative, NDP, and Bloc Québécois parties were saying about the pandemic.

The Canadian military was monitoring opposition political parties using anonymous accounts created specifically for surveillance.

At least two JOE team members pushed back. They emailed their chain of command, warning that creating anonymous accounts without authorization, while working from home on personal computers, could breach intelligence directives.

One soldier wrote to Maj. John Zwicewicz on March 12, 2020: “Given the sensitivity around social media and military use I have concerns about this.”

They added: “My concern is that by creating these accounts without following proper procedure would come close to, or cross the line set out in the policy.” Another asked to go into the office because they felt it “represented a serious risk” to do the work at home.

Zwicewicz claimed a legal adviser had approved the activities and ordered the group to “cease barrack room lawyering” and get back to work. The team was formally reprimanded more than a week after raising concerns. A source told CBC News that within months, some members quit or were medically released.

The people who raised alarms about potentially illegal surveillance of Canadian citizens got punished. The people who ordered the surveillance kept their positions.

Keep reading

German Intelligence Deems Watermelon Emoji Hate Speech

Germany has reached the point where even a watermelon can now be treated as a political threat. That is how absurd Europe has become. According to reports surrounding the latest antisemitism controversy in Germany, authorities and institutions are increasingly targeting symbols tied to pro-Palestinian activism, including the watermelon symbol that protesters began using after Palestinian flags and imagery started facing restrictions in some settings.

Think about how insane this has become. A watermelon is now being politically analyzed for “hate speech” implications while Europe is collapsing economically, energy prices remain elevated, migration tensions are exploding, and Germany itself is entering one of the worst industrial downturns since World War II. Instead of fixing the economy, Berlin is policing fruit symbolism and online speech.

I have warned that Germany has been moving steadily toward censorship for years. They raid homes over social media posts, prosecute citizens for insults online, and constantly expand speech laws under the excuse of fighting extremism. The problem is governments never stop at genuine extremism. Once censorship machinery exists, everything eventually becomes “dangerous.” Today it is a watermelon emoji. Tomorrow it becomes criticism of migration policy, opposition to war, or questioning government spending.

The Germans of all people should understand where this road leads. Europe has convinced itself that suppressing speech somehow eliminates social anger. It does not. It only drives resentment underground where it becomes more radicalized. History has shown repeatedly that governments trying to regulate political thought always end up creating even greater instability.

The frightening part is the sheer hypocrisy. Europe claims to defend democracy while simultaneously deciding which symbols, opinions, protests, or political expressions are acceptable. A watermelon itself is obviously not hateful. It is a piece of fruit. What governments fear is not the symbol itself. They fear losing control over public opinion as anger grows across Europe over war, migration, inflation, and collapsing living standards.

This is the real crisis developing in Germany. Not merely antisemitism, which absolutely exists and should be condemned, but the broader destruction of open discourse itself. Once governments begin defining ordinary political symbolism as dangerous, free society is already in serious trouble.

Keep reading

X Agrees to Review Illegal “Hate” Within 48 Hours Under UK Online Safety Act

X has agreed to process the vast majority of content flagged as illegal “hate” under the UK’s Online Safety Act within 48 hours, giving Ofcom, Britain’s speech regulator, a significant new enforcement win.

The platform committed to “review and assess UK suspected illegal terrorist and “hate” content reported through its dedicated UK illegal content reporting tool on average within 24 hours of it being reported, to be calculated as a mean” and to “review and assess at least 85% of UK suspected illegal terrorist and hate content reported through its dedicated UK illegal content reporting tool within a maximum of 48 hours.”

The deal is a notable reversal for a platform that, less than a year ago, publicly accused Ofcom of taking a “heavy-handed approach” and warned that the Online Safety Act was “seriously infringing” on free expression.

X’s August 2025 statement, titled “What Happens When Oversight Becomes Overreach,” called out regulators by name and argued that the law amounted to a “conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of ‘online safety.’” That language is gone now. What’s left is a compliance agreement with specific performance targets and a 12-month reporting obligation.

The commitments go beyond speed of review. X also agreed to block access to accounts in the UK if they are reported for “posting UK illegal terrorist content” and deemed to be “operated by or on behalf of a terrorist organisation proscribed in the UK.”

The platform will share quarterly performance data with Ofcom so the regulator can audit compliance. And following complaints from organizations that couldn’t tell whether X had received or acted on their reports, X agreed to “engage with experts regarding reporting systems for illegal hate and terror content.”

Who those experts are tells you something about the direction of travel. Ofcom’s own press release names the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) as one of the organizations it worked with to “gather evidence about suspected illegal terrorist content and illegal hate speech online.”

The CCDH is a pro-censorship campaign group co-founded in 2018 by Imran Ahmed and Morgan McSweeney, who went on to become UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s chief of staff.

McSweeney stepped down from CCDH’s board two days after Starmer became Labour leader. The organization maintains close ties to the current government and has stated that its goal was to “kill Musk’s Twitter,” according to leaked internal documents reported by Matt Taibbi and Paul Thacker.

Ahmed himself was sanctioned by the US State Department in December 2025 over concerns that his organization had led “organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints.” A federal court blocked his deportation with a temporary restraining order.

This is the organization Ofcom chose to help build the evidence base for pressuring X into compliance. Ahmed, for his part, welcomed the deal. Speaking to POLITICO, he said CCDH will be “watching closely to ensure this results in meaningful action, not just words.”

Keep reading

	Connecticut Governor… on Connecticut Governor’s Signatu…
	Bigus Macus on NATO Propagandists Again Procl…
	freemattpodcast on This Is The Deep State On Para…
	Pentagon puts buildi… on The evidence for a planned cov…
	Petition to Ban Hunt… on Petition to Ban Hunting and Fi…