Tag: internet

I Searched For Stories Of Trans Contagion. Google Lectured Me With False Propaganda

There are a plethora of stories of children being pressured into adopting transgender personalities, but don’t bother using Google to search for them. I tried, and the search engine spat out unsolicited propaganda and falsehoods about children and transgender identity.

I searched for testimonies from young people who adopted transgender identities “because it was cool” — like the story of Ash Eskridge, a young woman who became convinced she was a boy after watching social media influencers promote transgenderism.

But Google’s AI tool brushes off the idea that transgender identities are often a social contagion, despite evidence to the contrary. A 2018 study from Brown University — which was quickly repressed after outrage from transgender ideologues — found that 87 percent of the children in question “became gender dysphoric after friends did, after increasing their time online, or both,” as my colleague Joy Pullmann reported at the time. The study included examples of friend groups all adopting transgender identities together, and of kids being rewarded for transgender identities with social incentives like popularity and praise. Another study, by researchers at Virginia Tech in 2023, found girls who adopted transgender identities were “more likely to be accepted by peers.”

The search engine would have you believe that children are not just capable of arbitrarily choosing their sex but of doing so before they graduate from diapers. “Gender identity typically solidifies between ages 3 and 4,” the AI overview claims. The hard scientific proof that your toddler’s biology is actually backwards, it says, can be a “girl playing with trucks or a boy preferring dolls.”

One of the sources collated by the AI summary is a Mayo Clinic article that instructs parents to reinforce and show “admiration” for children who show an interest in stereotypically cross-sex behaviors. You can even “help ease a child’s depression and anxiety” by socially transitioning them, say the Mayo Clinic staff. All of this so-called medical advice points to reinforcing a child’s gender confusion, never challenging it.

Keep reading

UK Speech Regulator Ofcom Claims First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Americans From Its Censorship Law

If you’re going to cross an ocean to tell Americans what speech they can and can’t allow, the least you can do is not trip over your own jurisdictional nonsense on the way in.

Ofcom, the UK’s media regulator, which has lately decided to try and become an international speech cop, managed to do exactly that.

But when the regulator began sending enforcement letters to small US platforms under its sweeping online censorship law, the Online Safety Act, it probably didn’t expect to trigger a constitutional ambush.

But that’s exactly what it got.

Preston Byrne, one of attorneys representing 4chan, Kiwi Farms, and two other American companies, said Ofcom had been sending “frankly asinine letters under English law.”

His clients, he explained, “are entirely American. All of their operations are American. All of their infrastructure is American, and they have no connection to the UK whatsoever.”

Despite this, Ofcom threatened the companies with “a £20,000 fine plus £100 daily penalties for 60 days thereafter.”

Byrne responded to Ofcom’s pressure by filing a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C.

The lawsuit was designed not only to challenge Ofcom’s jurisdiction but to force a contradiction into the open.

Byrne said the purpose of the lawsuit was threefold. One, to show the global censors that the resistance in the United States is now prepared to fight back, and they don’t have freedom of action.

Two, to assert hims client’s claims and defenses in a US court, and make the argument in front of a US federal judge.

And the third one was to provoke Ofcom into “doing something stupid, which is exactly what they did.”

After the case was filed, Ofcom sent what Byrne called “a 40-page letter of tremendous length, which is deeply unserious.”

Ofcom’s written response delivered exactly what Byrne says was needed: an explicit admission that Ofcom doesn’t “think US law applies on US soil and that they’re going to use [the argument of] sovereign immunity.”

This was more than a legal contradiction; it was a political one that directly undercuts the British government’s public assurances.

“This rather undermines the British government’s assertions that it’s made time and again, including to the President, to his face, that the British government is not using its sovereign power to censor American citizens,” Byrne said.

In its official notice to 4chan, Ofcom made an extraordinary admission which, in trying to assert its authority, effectively undercut its entire legal position.

The regulator wrote: “We also note 4chan’s claim that it is protected from enforcement action taken by Ofcom because of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. However, the First Amendment binds only the US government and not overseas bodies, such as Ofcom, and therefore, it does not affect Ofcom’s powers to enforce the Act in this case.”

This reveals the fundamental flaw in Ofcom’s claim to authority over American companies.

By asserting that the First Amendment “binds only the US government,” Ofcom admits it stands entirely outside the US constitutional order, yet it simultaneously claims the right to enforce UK speech law against US entities operating solely on US soil.

Ofcom cannot have it both ways: it cannot disclaim the reach of US law while insisting that British law somehow extends across the Atlantic.

If the First Amendment has no force on Ofcom’s actions in the United States, then neither does the UK’s censorship law, the Online Safety Act, which has no legal effect beyond the UK.

Keep reading

Instagram says it’s safeguarding teens by limiting them to PG-13 content

Meta says teenagers on Instagram will be restricted to seeing PG-13 content by default and won’t be able to change their settings without a parent’s permission

Instagram says it’s safeguarding teens by limiting them to PG-13 contentBy BARBARA ORTUTAYAP Technology WriterThe Associated Press

Teenagers on Instagram will be restricted to seeing PG-13 content by default and won’t be able to change their settings without a parent’s permission, Meta announced on Tuesday.

This means kids using teen-specific accounts will see photos and videos on Instagram that are similar to what they would see in a PG-13 movie — no sex, drugs or dangerous stunts, among others.

“This includes hiding or not recommending posts with strong language, certain risky stunts, and additional content that could encourage potentially harmful behaviors, such as posts showing marijuana paraphernalia,” Meta said in a blog post Tuesday, calling the update the most significant since it introduced teen accounts last year.

Anyone under 18 who signs up for Instagram is automatically placed into restrictive teen accounts unless a parent or guardian gives them permission to opt out. The teen accounts are private by default, have usage restrictions on them and already filter out more “sensitive” content — such as those promoting cosmetic procedures. But kids often lie about their ages when they sign up for social media, and while Meta has began using artificial intelligence to find such accounts, the company declined to say how many adult accounts it has determined to be minors since rolling out the feature earlier this year.

The company is also adding an even stricter setting that parents can set up for their children.

The changes come as the social media giant faces relentless criticism over harms to children. As it seeks to add safeguards for younger users, Meta has already promised it wouldn’t show inappropriate content to teens, such as posts about self-harm, eating disorders or suicide.

But this does not always work. A recent report, for instance, found that teen accounts researchers created were recommended age-inappropriate sexual content, including “graphic sexual descriptions, the use of cartoons to describe demeaning sexual acts, and brief displays of nudity.”

Keep reading

Canada’s Privacy Watchdog Not Consulted on Bill C-8, Enabling Secret Internet & Phone Shutdowns

Legislation that would allow federal ministers to secretly order telecom providers to cut off a Canadian’s phone or internet access is advancing without any input from the country’s top privacy authority.

Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne told a Commons committee that his office was never asked to review Bill C-8 before it was introduced.

The bill would authorize the cabinet to compel telecom companies to block services to individuals considered a security threat, without needing a judge’s approval or any public disclosure.

“The issue never came up,” Dufresne said during testimony before the House of Commons ethics committee. He confirmed, “We are not consulted on specific pieces of legislation before they are tabled.”

Bill C-8 would allow the federal cabinet to direct a telecom provider to deny all services to a specific person, based solely on the government’s assessment of a threat. No warrant would be required. No independent body would be tasked with reviewing the decision.

Conservative MP Michael Barrett raised an alarm over what he described as a dangerous overreach. He said the bill would allow the government to quietly seize control of individuals’ communications, with no transparency and no legal checks.

“Without meaningful limits, bills like C-8 can hand the government secret powers over Canadians’ communications,” said Barrett. “It’s a serious setback for privacy and for democracy.”

He pressed Dufresne on whether Parliament should be required to conduct privacy assessments before passing legislation with such broad surveillance potential.

“Isn’t Parliament simply being asked to grant sweeping powers of surveillance to the government without a formal review?” Barrett asked.

Dufresne responded, “It’s not a legal obligation under the Privacy Act.”

While acknowledging the importance of national security, Dufresne warned that such measures must not override core privacy protections. “We need to make sure that by protecting national security, we are not doing so at the expense of privacy,” he said.

A previous version of the idea, Bill C-26, failed in an earlier Parliament after concerns over its civil liberties implications.

Keep reading

UK Regulator Ofcom Uses Online Censorship Law To Fine American Platform 4chan

The operator behind the American imageboard 4chan has been hit with a £20,000 ($26,650) fine by the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom, which, under the controversial censorship law, the Online Safety Act, has begun targeting online platforms.

The penalty comes after 4chan declined to provide details on how, or whether, it’s complying with the legislation that critics of censorship argue grants the UK government broad authority over digital platforms.

The fine had been anticipated since August. That decision has now been finalized, according to a statement issued by the regulator.

Beyond the lump sum, Ofcom will begin charging an additional £100 ($133) every day starting Tuesday, a compounding penalty that will continue for up to 60 days or until 4chan responds to its demands, whichever comes first.

Ofcom’s Director of Enforcement, Suzanne Cater, claimed the agency is serious about enforcing the new law.

“Today sends a clear message that any service which flagrantly fails to engage with Ofcom and their duties under the Online Safety Act can expect to face robust enforcement action.” She further asserted that some platforms are already adopting new safeguards following pressure from the regulator, while warning that services choosing to limit their availability to UK users rather than implement content filters remain under scrutiny.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall celebrated the action, calling it a model of the law in practice. “The Online Safety Act is not just law, it’s a lifeline. Today we’ve seen it in action, holding platforms to account so we can protect people across the UK.”

She went on to claim: “This fine serves a clear warning to those who fail to remove illegal content or protect children from harmful material. We fully back the regulator in taking action against all platforms that do not protect users from the darkest corners of the internet.”

Preston Byrne, who represents 4chan in the case, has previously condemned the action in unambiguous terms.

Byrne called it “an illegal campaign of harassment” against American tech firms, and added, “4chan has broken no laws in the United States – my client will not pay any penalty.”

Keep reading

Telegram’s Durov: We’re “Running Out Of Time To Save The Free Internet”

Messaging app Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov warns that a “dark, dystopian world” is approaching, with governments worldwide rolling back privacy protections.

“I’m turning 41, but I don’t feel like celebrating. Our generation is running out of time to save the free internet built for us by our fathers,” said Durov in an X post on Thursday.

“Once-free countries are introducing dystopian measures,” said Durov, referencing the European Union’s Chat Control proposal, digital IDs in the UK and new rules requiring online age checks to access social media in Australia.

“What was once the promise of the free exchange of information is being turned into the ultimate tool of control.”

“Germany is persecuting anyone who dares to criticize officials on the Internet. The UK is imprisoning thousands for their tweets. France is criminally investigating tech leaders who defend freedom and privacy.”  

“A dark, dystopian world is approaching fast — while we’re asleep. Our generation risks going down in history as the last one that had freedoms — and allowed them to be taken away,” Pavel added.

Keep reading

Free Speech Advocates Warn EU’s Digital Services Act Enables Pan-European Censorship and Threatens Political Dissent

A controversial EU regulation is drawing fierce warnings from a global group of free speech advocates who argue it paves the way for widespread censorship in Europe and beyond.

The Digital Services Act (DSA), which allows European Union authorities to fine tech companies for hosting content deemed illegal or harmful, has caused concern among 113 public figures who say the law could crush political expression and dissent under an opaque system with vague rules.

In a letter addressed to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the group accused the EU of eroding basic democratic freedoms by turning private platforms into enforcers of state-approved narratives.

The message, led by Alliance Defending Freedom International and sent to Reclaim The Net, warns that the DSA’s structure encourages governments and aligned institutions to police opinions in ways that would be unthinkable under traditional free speech protections.

“Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democratic societies. It is through the exchange of ideas — including controversial ones — that societies evolve, and public officials remain accountable,” the letter states.

The DSA, passed under the pretext of regulating disinformation and online harm, is set to undergo formal review in November.

Its enforcement mechanisms enable both state actors and private organizations to flag material they believe violates EU or national law.

However, the term “illegal content” remains loosely defined, opening the door to subjective enforcement and political targeting.

The signatories highlighted real cases that reflect a growing intolerance for dissenting views in Europe.

One example is Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, who is being prosecuted for expressing her religious views on marriage and sexuality through social media.

According to the letter, the DSA “introduces sweeping mechanisms” that not only allow but encourage cross-border enforcement of restrictive speech laws.

The group emphasized that one EU member state’s most rigid rules could effectively become binding across the entire Union, imposing a lowest-common-denominator standard for expression.

Keep reading

Afghan women lose their ‘last hope’ as Taliban shuts down internet

Fahima Noori had big dreams when she graduated from university in Afghanistan.

She had studied law, graduated from a midwifery programme and even worked in a mental health clinic.

But all that was taken away when the Taliban swept into power in 2021. They banned girls over the age of 12 from getting an education, severely restricted job options for women and recently removed books written by women from universities.

For Fahima, the internet was her last lifeline to the outside world.

“I recently enrolled in an online university [and] I had hoped to finish my studies and find an online job,” she said.

On Tuesday, that lifeline was cut off when the Taliban imposed a nationwide internet shutdown that is set to last indefinitely.

“Our last hope was online learning. Now [even] that dream has been destroyed,” said Fahima.

Her real name has been changed to protect her identity, as have the names of all others interviewed for this article.

Keep reading

OpenAI to Implement Age Verification System for ChatGPT as AI Mental Health Crisis Deepens

OpenAI has announced plans to develop an automated age-prediction system to determine whether ChatGPT users are over or under 18, following a lawsuit related to a teen’s suicide. The teen’s parents claim that Sam Altman’s AI chatbot served as the boy’s “suicide coach.”

Ars Technica reports that in the wake of a lawsuit involving a 16-year-old boy who tragically died by suicide after engaging in extensive conversations with ChatGPT, OpenAI has announced its intention to implement an age verification system for its popular AI chatbot. The company aims to automatically direct younger users to a restricted version of the service, prioritizing safety over privacy and freedom for teens.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman acknowledged the potential privacy compromise for adults in a blog post but believes it is a necessary trade-off to ensure the well-being of younger users. The company plans to route users under 18 to a modified ChatGPT experience that blocks graphic sexual content and includes other age-appropriate restrictions. When uncertain about a user’s age, the system will default to the restricted experience, requiring adults to verify their age to access full functionality.

Developing an effective age-prediction system is a complex technical challenge for OpenAI. The company has not specified the technology it intends to use or provided a timeline for deployment. Recent academic research has shown both possibilities and limitations for age detection based on text analysis. While some studies have achieved high accuracy rates under controlled conditions, performance drops significantly when attempting to classify specific age groups or when users actively try to deceive the system.

In addition to the age-prediction system, OpenAI plans to launch parental controls by the end of September. These features will allow parents to link their accounts with their teenagers’ accounts, disable specific functions, set usage blackout hours, and receive notifications when the system detects acute distress in their teen’s interactions. However, the company notes that in rare emergency situations where parents cannot be reached, they may involve law enforcement as a next step.

The push for enhanced safety measures follows OpenAI’s acknowledgment that ChatGPT’s safety protocols can break down during lengthy conversations, potentially failing to intervene or notify anyone when vulnerable users engage in harmful interactions. The tragic case of Adam Raine, the 16-year-old who died by suicide, highlighted the system’s shortcomings when it mentioned suicide 1,275 times in conversations with the teen without taking appropriate action.

Keep reading

Lawmaker proposes web blackout for Russians

Russians should be forced off the internet on weekends or even entire weeks, Nikolay Arefyev, an MP with the Russian Communist Party (KPRF) has proposed. Doing so would have a positive impact on people’s health, he argued.

The legislator floated the idea on Thursday while speaking to the news outlet Abzats. While acknowledging the importance of the internet for work and easy access to information, Arefyev argued that it should be restricted for extended periods of time.

“The internet currently does more harm than good,” the MP stated. “The thing is, it seems to me that 70% of the internet is used to harm one’s own health, because people sit there for hours, days, years, ruining their eyesight and nerves.”

The lawmaker also lamented “gaming addiction” that is plaguing “millions of people.” Many end up in mental institutions due to playing games, Arefyev claimed.

“Therefore, we probably need to shut [the internet] down for weeks at a time, or [do it] on weekends so people can rest,” he suggested.

Keep reading