Tag: internet

Putin Criminalizes Online Searches for ‘Extremist’ Content

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday signed a law that criminalizes searches for “extremist” content on the internet, with fines of up to 5,000 rubles ($64) for each violation.

The Moscow Times noted that even some of Russia’s more enthusiastic censors are uneasy about the new law because they might get busted for seeking out extreme content so they can censor it:

Yekaterina Mizulina, head of the Kremlin-aligned Safe Internet League and a prominent advocate of online censorship, voiced unease over the bill earlier this month. She warned that it could obstruct the League’s work, roughly 30% of which involves identifying extremist content and forwarding it to authorities.

Mizulina claimed that the legislation could even put police officers at legal risk for viewing content as part of their duties.

In a similar vein, the head of Russian state propaganda network RT, Margarita Simonyan, lamented that her apparatchiks would be hindered in their quest to “investigate and bring to shame” critics of the Kremlin and the Ukraine war if they were “forbidden to even read them.”

The vote in the Russian parliament to pass the bill was more divided than usual, with opposition from factions that usually give Putin what he wants, including the Communist Party. An aide to a liberal Russian politician who protested the bill by comparing it to the Big Brother dystopia of George Orwell’s 1984 was immediately arrested.

Internet freedom advocates, meanwhile, raised the objection that “extremism” can be difficult to define and Putin is likely to stretch the term to include all criticism of his government.

Human Rights Watch pointed out that Putin has previously designated anti-corruption groups, LGBT organizations, independent media outlets, human rights groups, and political opponents as “extremists.” It is a safe bet that Russian courts will find most criticism of the Ukraine war to be “extremist” in character.

The new law empowers Putin’s enforcers to go after people who search for “extreme” content, not just those who create it. The chilling effect on dissent will be formidable in a nation where dissent was already half-frozen to death.

Putin’s digital minister, Maksut Shadayev, was predictably evasive when asked how the regime would define “extremist” content, or tell the difference between users who intentionally seek it out compared to those who stumble across it by accident. Shadayev said it would be up to prosecutors to demonstrate “intent.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said Putin’s new law was the “most serious step in censorship and the fight against dissent” since the 2022 bill that established 15-year prison sentences for disseminating “fake news” about Russia’s military activities.

“This vaguely worded, fast-tracked bill shows a clear disregard for open debate and create an even more repressive environment for the media and the public,” said CPJ Europe and Central Asia Senior Researcher Anna Brakha.

Keep reading

Irish High Court Rejects X’s Challenge to Online Censorship Law

The Irish High Court has thrown out a legal challenge by X, dealing a blow to the company’s pushback against Ireland’s new censorship rules for online video-sharing services.

X had taken aim at Coimisiún na Meán, the country’s media watchdog, accusing it of stepping beyond legal limits with its Online Safety Code.

The rules demand that platforms hosting user-generated videos take active steps to shield users from “harmful” material. The company had described the regulator’s actions as “regulatory overreach.”

Mr Justice Conleth Bradley, delivering judgment on Wednesday, found no merit in X’s application for judicial review. The court concluded that the regulator’s code was lawful and that its provisions fell within the scope of both the EU’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) and Ireland’s 2009 Broadcasting Act.

According to the ruling, the code does not clash with the Digital Services Act and can function in tandem with EU law.

Responding to the outcome, Coimisiún na Meán said it welcomed the decision and intended to examine the ruling closely before offering more detailed comment.

The case comes as X begins rolling out new age verification systems to meet obligations under the Irish code, alongside compliance efforts aimed at satisfying UK and wider EU digital censorship regulations.

The ruling marks a significant moment in the ongoing struggle over who decides the boundaries of online speech and content moderation.

Keep reading

Spotify Threatens to Delete Accounts That Fail Digital ID Checks

Spotify has begun warning users that their accounts could be permanently removed unless they complete a new age verification process, part of a broader shift toward stricter content access and censorship controls on digital platforms.

The company has introduced a system that uses facial recognition technology to estimate a user’s age, with further ID verification required if the software detects someone who appears to be underage.

A notification recently began appearing within the app, instructing listeners to verify their age through Yoti, a third-party application that scans faces via smartphone cameras to assess whether a user meets the required age for access.

If the system concludes that a person might be too young, Spotify will ask for additional documentation and show ID. Anyone who does not complete the verification within 90 days will lose access to their account entirely.

According to Spotify’s updated policy page, “You cannot use Spotify if you don’t meet the minimum age requirements for the market you’re in,” adding that users who cannot confirm their age “will be deactivated and eventually deleted.”

The platform, which allows users as young as 13 to join, said it will begin prompting certain individuals to verify their age when they attempt to view content labeled as suitable only for adults.

“Some users will now have to confirm their age by going through an age assurance process,” Spotify stated. This may occur, for example, when someone tries to watch a music video rated 18+ by the rights-holder.

Spotify’s decision arrives amid a wave of newly mandated age-check measures driven by the UK’s new censorship law, the Online Safety Act, which came into force recently.

Under the law, platforms must restrict access to content not suitable for minors, including pornography and violent material, and enforce age thresholds set out in their own user policies. Companies that fail to comply face fines of up to 10 percent of global turnover.

Keep reading

Why the UK’s age verification system (probably) won’t work

On Friday, the “Age Verification” clause of the UK’s Online Safety Act officially came into force. The result was a sudden surge in discussion, and a lot of people realising – finally – what the law really means.

People have been googling “VPN” a lot. That’s a good thing; we’ll get to why later.

Unfortunately, much of this is stable doors and bolted horses. We’ve been warning about the OSA since it was first mooted (by the Conservatives, just to remind you that “sides” are an illusion), and we’re rather past the point where awareness would have mattered.

The new law essentially forces companies to put any even potentially “adult content” behind an ID wall – meaning a user must prove their age before they access it. The ways of doing that vary; you can use a credit card or let an AI-powered system scan your face via webcam to guess your age.

Don’t worry, it won’t store the data, and it’s only guessing your age, not scanning your face and uploading it to some data storage centre. They promised they wouldn’t do that.

The really vital part here is what exactly “adult content” means. It evokes – and is indeed intended to evoke – pornography. The act was sold as a tool to prevent children from accessing the near-infinite amounts of porn scattered across the web, but pornography is the least of it.

“Adult content” can also mean violence, suicide, animal cruelty, war, drugs…or any news coverage and/or discussion of the same. It could also mean “conspiracy theories”, especially those which could “expose children to harm”, like anti-vaccine sentiment, or cause “radicalization”.

In fact, it can potentially mean anything it is required to mean, which is exactly the kind of thing they LOVE to put in new laws.

But I don’t want to rehash these points here. You can read our previous coverage of it HERE HERE HERE and HERE.

Today I want to talk about how the OSA is going to spread, and why it might not matter if it does.

Over the weekend, it was widely noted on Twitter/X that Elon Musk’s platform was putting EU-based users behind the age restriction, not just British ones. People made jokes that the US-based platform couldn’t differentiate between the UK and Europe.

Far more likely, they are preparing for when the EU launches its own age verification scheme in the near future.

Keep reading

UK DYSTOPIA: British Police Forms ‘Elite Team’ to Monitor Social Media Searching for ‘Anti-migrant’ Posts, as Leftist Labour Government Braces for Citizens’ Revolt

The United Kingdom continues to devolve into a totalitarian state bent on destroying British society.

Under Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Britain accelerates its descent into a thought-policing state that cares more for ‘asylum seekers’ (a.k.a. illegal invaders) than it does for its own citizens-taxpayers.

As the fed-up British start to push back against the criminal elements among the migrants, we learn that the deranged leftist government is raising an ‘elite team of police officers’ to monitor social media for ‘anti-migrant sentiment’, as Starmer and his unpopular team brace themselves in fear of the people.

The Telegraph reported:

“Detectives will be drawn from forces across the country to take part in a new investigations unit that will flag up early signs of potential civil unrest.

The division, assembled by the Home Office, will aim to ‘maximize social media intelligence’ gathering after police forces were criticized over their response to last year’s riots.”

Keep reading

Tea App Leak Shows Why UK’s Digital ID Age Verification Laws are Dangerous

The UK’s Online “Safety” Act, legislation marketed as a safety net for children, was rolled out with all the foresight of a toddler launching a space program. Now, any site hosting “potentially harmful” content could be required to collect real-world ID, face scans, or official documents from users.

What could go wrong? Ask Tea, the women-centric dating gossip app that went viral by promising empowerment, then faceplanted into one of the most dangerous data breaches of the year. Their Firebase server, housing tens of thousands of selfies and government-issued IDs, was left wide open to anyone with a link.

This is the real-world consequence of lawmakers selling digital ID mandates as a solution to online harm: private companies getting access to sensitive personal data with all the discretion of a parade float, and then dropping it into the laps of the entire internet.

Let’s pause for a moment and appreciate the cosmic genius it takes to build an app allegedly designed to protect women, and then expose all of their private data to the world with the finesse of a first-time hacker copying a URL.

Tea, the dating app that rocketed to the top of the App Store by selling anonymity, safety, and empowerment, before face-planting into the Firebase server floor, spraying driver’s licenses and selfies like a busted confetti cannon.

Keep reading

Federal surveillance of Jews, Trudeau critics was part of larger plot to censor the internet

Federal surveillance of pro-Israel social media accounts was part of a larger Canadian Heritage project to find “promising regulatory avenues to curb online content,” according to Access To Information records. The specific accounts monitored were not disclosed, as reported by Blacklock’s.

In 2023, the Liberal government, led by Justin Trudeau, explored international internet censorship practices, backed by groups like the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) and the NCCM.

“We’ve seen great progress,” said former Justice Minister Arif Virani in December 2023, who provided no examples of legal content they would censor when asked by reporters.

Since 2021, Cabinet has introduced two bills, C-36 and C-63, to censor legal internet content. Both failed due to opposition from Conservative MPs, academia, and free speech advocates.

Despite professing support for free speech, Trudeau repeatedly stated that legal internet content requires regulation, as he testified at the Emergencies Act inquiry in September 2022.

The now-former prime minister believes social media, a “petri dish” for “anger” and “hate,” is “destabilizing our democracy” in an unprecedented and challenging way.

On April 10, Prime Minister Mark Carney publicly stated his intent to address “online pollution” through censorship. As of now, no new legislation has been introduced.

However, a federal consultant’s memo detailed a project to engage policymakers and law enforcement on digital regulation, drawing from European models, to curb online content threatening Canadian communities.

Keep reading

Blake Lively Wants Names and IP Addresses

Blake Lively has decided that the best way to respond to online gossip and criticism is with subpoenas, lots of them. With a move that suggests her legal team spent a weekend watching “Enemy of the State,” Lively is now targeting 36 content creators, from high-profile commentators to pseudonymous hobbyists, all over rumors she says were part of a smear effort.

Some of the targets have large followings. Others barely register on the algorithm. One runs a YouTube astrology channel with fewer than 300 subscribers at the time of the subpoena. All are now being asked to turn over a wide array of personal and financial data, as if they were co-conspirators in a criminal probe instead of people who post opinions from their bedrooms.

The case, Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, is already a headache in itself, but this new front seems designed less to resolve the actual lawsuit and more to comb through the internet for anything unflattering.

We obtained a copy of the Google subpoena for you here.

We obtained a copy of the TikTok subpoena for you here.

We obtained a copy of the X subpoena for you here.

If you’re out of the loop, Blake Lively is suing Wayfarer Studios, its co-founder Justin Baldoni, and several others, alleging sexual harassment, workplace misconduct, breach of contract, and a coordinated retaliation campaign designed to destroy her reputation.

According to the complaint, Lively raised concerns about repeated inappropriate behavior by Baldoni and Wayfarer executives during production of It Ends With Us. After the film was completed, she claims Baldoni and his team launched a covert “social manipulation” campaign to discredit her using fake grassroots content, crisis PR firms, and anonymous online posts, which she describes as a well-funded digital smear effort.

Keep reading

Reddit Now Requires Age Verification In UK To Comply With Nation’s Online Safety Act

The news and social media aggregation platform Reddit now requires its United Kingdom based users to provide age verification to access “mature content” hosted on its website.

Users must prove they are eighteen years or older to read or contribute such content.

UK regulator Ofcom stated “We expect other companies to follow suit, or face enforcement if they fail to act.” Internet content providers who fail to adopt such measures can face fines of up to eighteen million pounds or ten percent of their worldwide revenue, whichever is greater.

For continued violations or serious cases, UK regulators may petition the courts to order “business disruption measures” such as forcing advertisers to end contracts or preventing payment providers to provide revenue for the platforms. Internet service providers can be required to block access to their users.

Reddit announced a partnership with Persona to provide an age verification service. Users will be able to upload a “selfie” image or a photograph of their government issued identification or passport as proof of majority. The company stated the age verification is a one-time process and that it will only retain users’ date of birth and verification status. Persona proffered they would only retain the photos for seven days.

David Greene, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, called the UK’s Online Safety Act a real tragedy: “UK users can no longer use the internet without having to provide their papers, as it were.”

The rules come as no surprise given the regulatory over-reach of many European governments.

The canards of Protecting the Children or Online Safety provide indirect tools to deny access or curtail speech, tools too tempting or useful for pro-censorship politicians and officials.

Keep reading

Court rules Mississippi’s social media age verification law can go into effect

A Mississippi law that requires social media users to verify their ages can go into effect, a federal court has ruled. A tech industry group has pledged to continue challenging the law, arguing it infringes on users’ rights to privacy and free expression.

A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals overruled a decision by a federal district judge to block the 2024 law from going into effect. It’s the latest legal development as court challenges play out against similar laws in states across the country.

Parents – and even some teens themselves – are growing increasingly concerned about the effects of social media use on young people. Supporters of the new laws have said they are needed to help curb the explosive use of social media among young people, and what researchers say is an associated increase in depression and anxiety.

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch argued in a court filing defending the law that steps such as age verification for digital sites could mitigate harm caused by “sex trafficking, sexual abuse, child pornography, targeted harassment, sextortion, incitement to suicide and self-harm, and other harmful and often illegal conduct against children.”

Attorneys for NetChoice, which brought the lawsuit, have pledged to continue their court challenge, arguing the law threatens privacy rights and unconstitutionally restricts the free expression of users of all ages.

Keep reading