Tag: internet

Florida Governor Candidate Proposes 50 Percent Tax on OnlyFans Creator Revenue

Politicians proposing extra taxes on pornography purchases or proceeds is nothing new. But Florida gubernatorial candidate James Fishback’s porn tax proposal stands out for the extraordinary paternalism that comes along with it.

“As Florida Governor, I will not allow a generation of smart and capable young women to sell their bodies online,” Fishback posted to X on Monday. 

It’s standard these days for anti-porn warriors to wring their hands about how porn viewership is corrupting young men and driving up loneliness, or to proclaim to be protecting children, or to claim that all porn performers are victims of human trafficking. So it’s almost refreshing to someone crusading against porn on “no hussies allowed” grounds.

At least Fishback, intentionally or not, suggests that online porn creators can be “smart and capable” women who are acting out of their own agency.

He just wants to take that agency away.

Specifically, Fishback is calling for a 50 percent tax on whatever people make via OnlyFans—a platform that has become notorious for connecting sexually explicit content creators with those willing to pay directly for said content, but in fact, creators of all sorts can sell content directly to fans through the platform.

“As Florida governor in year one, I will push for the first of its kind Only Fans Sin Tax,” Fishback said in a recent video. “If you are a so-called OnlyFans creator in Florida, you are going to pay 50 percent to the state on whatever you so-called earn on that online degeneracy platform.” 

Fishback said the funds collected from his OnlyFans sin tax would be used to fund education, crisis pregnancy centers, and a “mental health czar for men in particular.”  

He went on to complain that “toxic masculinity” gets blamed for too many of society’s ills when, presumably, everything is the whores’ faults. How adorably retro!

“As Florida governor,” he continued, “I don’t want young women—who could otherwise be mothers raising families, rearing children—I don’t want them to be selling their bodies to sick men online.”

Well, now I’m confused—are men to blame here or not?

On one level, I don’t think we need to take any of this too seriously. Taxing profits from one’s legal speech on one platform and not similarly situated platforms is clearly unconstitutional. Florida doesn’t even have an income tax, which would at least complicate plans to tax OnlyFans income. And Fishback is a long-shot candidate with some serious baggage.

“A Florida school district ‘cut ties‘ with Fishback, who ran an organization called Incubate Debate, after he ‘initiated a romantic relationship’ with a 17-year-old student and faced allegations that he harassed her after they broke up, a charge that Fishback has denied,” The Spectator reports.

“The odds that Fishback will win the primary are not quite zero, as he’s running against Congressman Byron Donalds, who’s dogged by insider-trading and proxy-voting scandals,” points out the Spectator columnist who goes simply by Cockburn. “Yet Fishback seems to be doing everything he can to lose, generate outrage, or both, calling Donalds, who is black, ‘By’rone’ on X – as in ‘By’rone wants to turn Florida into a Section 8 ghetto.'”

So, schlock candidate makes schlock proposal, we all gawk, and that’s that, right?

Keep reading

UK to bring into force law to tackle Grok AI deepfakes this week

The UK will bring into force a law which will make it illegal to create non-consensual intimate images, following widespread concerns over Elon Musk’s Grok AI chatbot.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said the government would also seek to make it illegal for companies to supply the tools designed to create such images.

Speaking to the Commons, Kendall said AI-generated pictures of women and children in states of undress, created without a person’s consent, were not “harmless images” but “weapons of abuse”.

The BBC has approached X for comment. It previously said: “Anyone using or prompting Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.”

It comes hours after Ofcom announced it was launching an investigation into X over “deeply concerning reports” about Grok altering images of people.

If found to have broken the law, Ofcom can potentially issue X with a fine of up to 10% of its worldwide revenue or £18 million, whichever is greater.

And if X does not comply, Ofcom can seek a court order to force internet service providers to block access to the site in the UK altogether.

In a statement, Kendall urged the regulator not to take “months and months” to conclude its investigation, and demanded it set out a timeline “as soon as possible”.

It is currently illegal to share deepfakes of adults in the UK, but legislation in the Data (Use and Access) Act which would make it a criminal offence to create or request them has not been enforced until now, despite passing in June 2025.

Last week, campaigners accused the government of dragging its heels on implementing that law.

“Today I can announce to the House that this offence will be brought into force this week,” Kendall told MPs.

In addition to the Data Act, Kendall said she would also make it a “priority offence” in the Online Safety Act.

“The content which has circulated on X is vile. It’s not just an affront to decent society, it is illegal,” she said.

“Let me be crystal clear – under the Online Safety Act, sharing intimate images of people without their consent, or threatening to share them, including pictures of people in their underwear, is a criminal offence for individuals and for platforms.

“This means individuals are committing a criminal offence if they create or seek to create such content including on X, and anyone who does this should expect to face the full extent of the law.”

Keep reading

Trump Says He Will Speak to Musk About Restoring Internet Access in Iran​

President Donald Trump said on Jan. 11 he was planning to speak with tech billionaire Elon Musk about restoring internet access in Iran after the regime blocked online services amid protests.

“As you know, he’s very good at that kind of thing. He’s got a very good company. So we may speak to Elon Musk, and heck, I’m going to call him as soon as I’m finished with you,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One.

Musk’s SpaceX company offers the Starlink service, which allows users access to the internet without any wired connection via a constellation of satellites surrounding Earth.

The flow of information from Iran has been hampered by an internet blackout since Jan. 8.

Neither Musk, who also owns social media platform X and electric car company Tesla, nor Starlink has yet commented publicly on Trump’s statement about the use of the technology in Iran.

The Epoch Times contacted SpaceX for comment but received no comment by publication time.

Keep reading

Cloudflare Vs Italy: The Battle For Digital Freedom And Global Internet Sovereignty

Italian authorities are attempting to force the internet service provider Cloudflare to delete and block certain online services. Cloudflare is resisting and has turned to the U.S. government for support.

The fight for a free internet is intensifying.

The struggle over control of information, censorship, and economic dominance in the digital space is increasingly becoming a fundamental civilizational question. That the European Union now sees not only the EU Commission but also national governments and security apparatuses siding with information diktats, against the fundamental principle of free speech, sends a dangerous signal to the world. The EU has effectively withdrawn from the circle of freedom-oriented state actors.

Into this picture fits a recent report from Italy. A tweet by the founder and CEO of the internet infrastructure provider Cloudflare, Matthew Prince, has caused a stir.

Prince reports that Cloudflare has been hit with a $17 million fine by a — as he calls it — clandestine cabal in Italy. The accusation: Cloudflare refused to participate in an Italian censorship mechanism at the behest of this group.

A Cabal of Regulators and Media Corporations

Specifically, this concerns a system controlled by the Italian media authority AGCOM (Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni) called the “Piracy Shield.” This blocking system is officially aimed at combating illegal sports and media streaming services. The main targets are the economic interests of major players such as Italy’s Serie A football league, Sky Italia, DAZN, Mediaset, and other large European media and rights corporations.

Private actors, comparable to the so-called “Trusted Flaggers” now familiar in Germany, operate on behalf of the Italian media sector within this system. They report websites, IP addresses, or suspicious domains to the Piracy Shield. The authority then compels internet service providers and infrastructure operators like Cloudflare to implement the corresponding blocks within just 30 minutes. Every advertising minute counts; piracy is indeed a dangerously significant economic factor. The question is: How do states and affected companies enforce copyright? Do they operate under the rule of law and avoid collateral damage, such as backdoor state censorship?

According to Prince, all of this happens without a judicial order or prior review, bypassing due legal process entirely. The measures affect not only allegedly illegal content but also deeply intrude into the technical infrastructure of the internet.

Keep reading

Kentucky Launches Mobile ID App Amid Broader Push for Digital Identity and Age Verification Law

Kentucky has introduced a new Mobile ID app that allows residents to carry a state-issued digital ID on their smartphones.

The credential can currently be used at TSA checkpoints in select airports and is described as a voluntary digital version of a driver’s license or state ID for limited verification purposes.

The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, which is overseeing the rollout, says the program is part of the state’s adoption of mobile driver’s license technology.

The digital ID is stored securely on the user’s phone and relies on encrypted Bluetooth connections for verification, removing the need to hand over a physical card.

At this stage, the credential is accepted only for TSA identity checks. The state has not indicated when or if it will expand to other uses such as traffic stops, public service access, or age-restricted purchases.

Kentucky officials have also stated that the app is not meant to serve as a full digital wallet but as a narrowly defined identification tool.

Governor Andy Beshear described the Mobile ID as “a secure and convenient option” for residents who wish to use it.

Transportation Cabinet Secretary Jim Gray noted that the digital version “reduces exposure of personal information” compared with showing a physical license.

The state has published detailed guidance explaining how to enroll, verify, and use the credential during airport screenings.

Kentucky’s Mobile ID app is not an isolated gadget for airport lines. It fits into a broader state effort to rethink how identity and age are confirmed in both physical and online settings.

This comes at a time when Kentucky lawmakers are actively expanding legal frameworks around age verification and digital identity across multiple fronts.

The Mobile ID lets residents carry a secure digital version of their driver’s license or state ID on a smartphone, currently usable at TSA checkpoints in participating airports.

The app’s design stores credentials locally on the device and uses encrypted Bluetooth to transmit only the necessary details for a verification task.

At the same time that the state is embracing mobile identity technology, lawmakers have enacted age verification legislation that applies to online activity.

Under House Bill 278, websites hosting adult content must verify that users are at least 18 years old before allowing access, which in practice has led some major adult sites to block access for Kentucky users rather than collect ID data online.

This law took effect in mid-2024 and reflects a legislative move to enforce age checks on digital platforms.

Kentucky’s digital identity initiative and its age verification law point toward a future where proving age and identity electronically may become more common in many contexts.

Keep reading

UK Orders Ofcom to Explore Encryption Backdoors

By now, we’ve all heard the familiar refrain: “It’s for your safety.” It’s the soothing mantra of every government official who’s ever wanted a peek behind your digital curtains.

This week, with a move that would make East Germany blush, the UK government officially confirmed its intention to hand Ofcom  (yes, that Ofcom, the regulator that once investigated whether Love Island was too spicy) the keys to your private messages.

The country, already experiencing rapidly declining civil liberties, is now planning to scan encrypted chats for “bad stuff.”

Now, for those unfamiliar, Ofcom is the UK’s communications regulator that has recently been given censorship pressure powers for online speech.

It’s become the government’s Swiss Army knife for everything from internet censorship to now, apparently, full-blown surveillance.

Under the Online Safety Act, Ofcom has been handed something called Section 121, which sounds like a tax loophole but is actually a legal crowbar for prying open encrypted messages.

It allows the regulator to compel any online service that lets people talk to each other, Facebook Messenger, Signal, iMessage, etc to install “accredited technology” to scan for terrorism or child abuse material.

Keep reading

Microsoft Shifts All Activations to Online Accounts

Microsoft’s removal of phone activation for Windows and Office is another signal that the company is locking users into a fully connected, account-bound environment where privacy and ownership steadily fade.

In the past, activating Windows could be done privately without linking the computer to any online profile. Users could install the system, call an automated number, and receive a confirmation code. No internet, no account, no tracking.

That layer of independence is gone. Today, activation demands a Microsoft account and an active connection to the company’s servers.

The change surfaced when YouTuber Ben Kleinberg tried to activate Windows 7 and Office 2010 with an OEM key.

Expecting the old process, he found that the phone number now plays a recorded message telling callers that “support for product activation has moved online.”

A follow-up text message pointed him to the Microsoft Product Activation Portal, where sign-in is mandatory.

It is easy to miss what has been lost here. Phone activation might have been old-fashioned, but it was more private.

You could install software without revealing your identity or linking it to a broader ecosystem. The new system transforms that private transaction into an interaction within Microsoft’s cloud, where every activation, every license, and every key is associated with an online identity.

This is not isolated. In recent versions of Windows, Microsoft has made it increasingly difficult to create local accounts or complete setup without going online.

Now, even activating a legitimate copy of the operating system has become part of the same pattern: tie every function to a Microsoft account, require internet access, and collect the corresponding data.

That approach quietly redefines what ownership means in the digital age. Buying a license no longer guarantees control over your software; it grants permission to use it under terms that depend on ongoing connectivity.

The computer becomes less of a personal device and more of a terminal inside a managed network.

Keep reading

Pakistan Blocks Major VPNs Under New Licensing Rules, Expanding State Control Over Internet Access

Over the past two weeks, internet users in Pakistan have watched their encrypted connections vanish one after another. Beginning December 22, 2025, major VPNs, including Proton VPN, NordVPN, ExpressVPN, Surfshark, Mullvad, Cloudflare WARP, and Psiphon have been systematically blocked across the country, according to Daily Pakistan.

The blackout follows a government licensing framework that, on paper, regulates VPN providers but in practice gives the state the power to decide which privacy tools are permitted.

The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) began enforcing its Class Value Added Services (CVAS-Data) licensing rules in November 2025, nearly a year after quietly introducing the policy.

Under these regulations, companies that want to operate legally must install “Legal Interception” compliant hardware and hand it over “to nationally authorized security organizations” at their own expense whenever instructed.

Any VPN not listed as licensed is automatically subject to blocking by domestic internet providers.

Keep reading

EU Veterans Rally to Recast the Digital Services Act as Accountability Not Control

It’s not every day that a collection of retired European grandees emerges from Brussels’ revolving doors to tell everyone how misunderstood the European Union is.

Yet here we are, with Bertrand Badré, Margrethe Vestager, Mariya Gabriel, Nicolas Schmit, and Guillaume Klossa linking arms to pen a sentimental defense of the bloc’s new digital commandments.

Their essay, “The Truth About Europe’s Regulation of Digital Platforms,” aims to assure us that Europe’s online rulebook, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), does not constitute censorship. It is “accountability,” they say.

In their telling, the DSA is less a blunt legal instrument than a moral document, a kind of digital Magna Carta designed to civilize Silicon Valley’s chaotic playground.

“There is no content regulation at the EU level,” they wrote, invoking the phrase like a magic spell meant to ward off skeptics.

The laws, they explained, simply make big tech companies “evaluate and mitigate systemic risks” and “act against illegal content.” Nothing to see here, just a little transparency, a dash of democracy protection, and the occasional removal of whatever a member state happens to call “illegal.”

It is the sort of language that can only come from officials who have spent decades describing regulation as liberation.

The letter was a response to a growing chorus of critics, including former US officials, who say Europe’s digital regime gives bureaucrats indirect control over what billions of people can see or say online.

Under the DSA, platforms must scan for “harmful or misleading” content, report their mitigation efforts, and warn users when something gets zapped.

Free speech groups have pointed out that when the law tells companies to “evaluate risks to democracy,” those companies tend to err on the side of deleting anything remotely controversial.

To them, “mitigation” often means mass deletion.

Badré and company brushed this off. “When we require platforms to be transparent about their algorithms, to assess risks to democracy and mental health, to remove clearly illegal content while notifying those affected, we are not censoring,” they wrote.

“We are insisting that companies with unprecedented power over public discourse operate with some measure of public accountability.”

When Europe does it, it is not censorship, it is civic hygiene.

Keep reading

Germany’s “Transparency Act” Lets Regulators Search Media Offices and Platforms Without Warrants

The German government has discovered a clever way to expand its surveillance powers: call it “transparency.” The federal cabinet has approved a bill that would let state agents enter media offices and digital platforms without needing a judge’s permission.

The official justification, ensuring honesty in political advertising, sounds harmless enough until you read the fine print and realize it’s about as transparent as a brick wall.

The “Political Advertising Transparency Act” is described as an effort to align with new EU rules on political ad disclosure.

What it actually does is grant the Bundesnetzagentur, a telecom regulator, search powers usually reserved for criminal investigators.

If the agency suspects a company has failed to file the right paperwork, it could send its people to “inspect” offices without a court order, provided they claim there’s an “imminent danger.”

“Imminent danger” is one of those magic bureaucratic phrases that can mean anything from “credible bomb threat” to “somebody forgot to upload a PDF.”

Once that phrase appears in law, the limits become a matter of interpretation.

Legal experts have warned that the law tramples Germany’s Basic Law, which guarantees the inviolability of the home. For journalists, the stakes are higher.

Confidential sources, ongoing investigations, and protected data could all be exposed to inspection because a regulator feels “concerned” about compliance.

In plain language: this opens the door to state intrusion under the banner of good governance.

Keep reading