Tag: social media

Progressives misdiagnose their X problem

In the year 2002, then US-President George W. Bush did something historic: He became the first sitting US President in decades to see his party gain seats in midterm elections.

This came, at the time, as something of a shock to the still-dominant and still reliably liberal mainstream news outlets in the US. The punditry, as the votes rolled in, was one of shock and surprise and “how could this have happened?” – scenes that would be repeated on election night two years later, and then taken to their absolute extreme in 2016 as Donald Trump consigned the First. Woman. President. to an electoral footnote.

Anyway, that election night has always stuck with me because of an exchange that took place on, I think, CNN between Democrat political advisor James Carville and Bush advisor Karl Rove. “Democrats just didn’t get their message out this time”, intoned Carville, somberly. “No”, replied Rove. “You guys always say that.” “The problem is not that you didn’t get your message out, it is that you did, and people didn’t like it”.

That particular exchange has come to mind in recent days watching the latest round of the twitter/X wars. Yesterday, Una Mullally took to the pages of the Irish Times to become the latest liberal pundit to denounce X. Over in the UK, there is talk of a ban. An internet blackout, of sorts, in a democratic country, preventing the public from accessing Elon Musk’s digital playground. Similar discussions are apparently happening in Australia, Canada, and of course in Brussels.

The official reason is of course that people are shocked, shocked to discover that there is porn on the internet and that AI tools are capable of digitally altering images to remove people’s clothes (I consider myself fortunate enough that nobody would ever wish to do that to me, for the sake of their eyes). But there’s an unofficial reason too, and it’s openly admitted. Here’s Una:

“Politicians need to realise that X is not Twitter. Under Musk, X is a vast disinformation network, a hotbed of racism, hate, extremism and dystopian delusions. It is a radicalisation tool, an arena of harassment, and yes, its chatbot is a creator, publisher and distributor of awful material.”

Note the “and yes” there at the end before she gets to Grok. It’s as plain an admission that you’ll see that the AI porn problem is an ancillary reason, not the primary reason, why politicians should be taking action. The primary reasons are set out in detail before hand: Disinformation, racism, hate, extremism, and something called dystopian delusions.

(Seriously, one might have thought the notion that governments should ban online discussion forums to save democracy from the people was a “dystopian delusion”. Evidently not.)

Keep reading

Here’s PROOF That UK’s X Ban Has NOTHING To Do With Protecting Children

As UK authorities ramp up their assault on free speech, a viral post shared by Elon Musk exposes the glaring hypocrisy in the government’s “protect the children” narrative. Data from the The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and police forces reveals Snapchat as the epicenter of online child sexual grooming, dwarfing X’s minimal involvement.

This comes amid Keir Starmer’s escalating war on X, where community notes routinely dismantle government spin, and unfiltered truth is delivered to the masses. If safeguarding kids was the real goal, it would be the likes of Snapchat in the crosshairs, given that thousands of real world child sexual offences have originated from its use.

Instead they’re going after X because, they claim, it provides the ability to make fake images of anyone in a bikini using the inbuilt Grok Ai image generator.

Based on 2025 NSPCC and UK police data, Snapchat is linked to 40-48% of identified child grooming cases, Instagram around 9-11%, Facebook 7-9%, WhatsApp 9%, and X under 2%.

These numbers align with NSPCC’s alarming report on the surge in online grooming. The charity recorded over 7,000 Sexual Communication with a Child offences in 2023/24—an 89% spike since 2017/18.

Keep reading

Starmer’s Looking for an Excuse to Ban X

Keir Starmer has signaled he is prepared to back regulatory action that could ultimately result in X being blocked in the UK.

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has suggested, more or less, that because Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok has been generating images of women and minors in bikinis, he’ll support going as far as hitting the kill switch and blocking access to the entire platform.

“The situation is disgraceful and disgusting,” Starmer said on Greatest Hits Radio; the station best known for playing ABBA and now, apparently, for frontline authoritarian tech policy announcements.

“X has got to get a grip of this, and Ofcom has our full support to take action…I’ve asked for all options to be on the table.”

“All options,” for those who don’t speak fluent Whitehall euphemism, now apparently includes turning Britain’s digital infrastructure into a sort of beige North Korea, where a bunch of government bureaucrats, armed with nothing but Online Safety Act censorship law and the panic of a 90s tabloid, get to decide which speech the public is allowed to see.

Now, you might be wondering: Surely he’s bluffing? Oh no. According to Downing Street sources, they’re quite serious.

And they’ve even named the mechanism: the Online Safety Act; that cheery little piece of legislation that sounds like it’s going to help grandmothers avoid email scams, but actually gives Ofcom the power to block platforms, fine them into oblivion, or ban them entirely if they don’t comply with government censorship orders.

Killing X isn’t a new idea. You may remember Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff, founded the Centre for Countering Digital Hate. In 2024, leaks revealed that the group was trying to “Kill Musk’s Twitter.”

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

10 convicted of cyberbullying France’s First Lady Brigitte Macron

A Paris court on Jan 5 found 10 people guilty of the cyberharassment of France’s First Lady, Mrs Brigitte Macron, for spreading false claims that she is a transgender woman who was born male.

Mrs Macron and her husband, French President Emmanuel Macron, have long faced such falsehoods, including allegations that she was born under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux – the actual name of her older brother.

The couple’s 24-year age gap has also drawn criticism and barbs, which they largely ignored for years, but have recently begun challenging in court.

The ruling on Jan 5 marks a victory for the Macrons as they pursue a separate high-profile US defamation lawsuit against right-wing influencer and podcaster Candace Owens, who has also claimed Mrs Macron was born male.

The eight men and two women were found guilty of making malicious comments about Mrs Macron’s gender and sexuality, even equating her age difference with her husband to “paedophilia”.

They received a range of sentences. One received a six-month jail sentence without suspension. Others received suspended jail terms of up to eight months.

Keep reading

EU says it is ‘seriously looking’ into Musk’s Grok AI over sexual deepfakes of minors

The European Commission said on Jan 5 it is “very seriously looking” into complaints that Mr Elon Musk’s AI tool Grok is being used to generate and disseminate sexually explicit child-like images.

“Grok is now offering a ‘spicy mode’ showing explicit sexual content with some output generated with child-like images. This is not spicy. This is illegal. This is appalling,” EU digital affairs spokesman Thomas Regnier told reporters.

He added: “This has no place in Europe.”

Complaints of abuse began hitting Mr Musk’s X social media platform, where Grok is available, after an “edit image” button for the generative artificial intelligence tool was rolled out in late December.

But Grok maker xAI, run by Mr Musk, said earlier in January it was scrambling to fix flaws in its AI tool.

The public prosecutor’s office in Paris has also expanded an investigation into X to include new accusations that Grok was being used for generating and disseminating child pornography.

Keep reading

Pakistan sentences journalists, YouTubers and ex-military officers to life over inciting violence

A court in Pakistan’s capital sentenced seven people, including three journalists, two YouTubers and two retired army officers, to life imprisonment on Friday, after convicting them of inciting violence during riots in 2023 and spreading hatred against state institutions.

An anti-terrorism court judge, Tahir Abbas Sipra, announced the verdict in Islamabad after completing trials held in absentia.

None of the accused were present in court. They have been living abroad after leaving the country in recent years to avoid arrest.

Those convicted include former editor Shaheen Sehbai; two other journalists, Sabir Shakir and Moeed Pirzada; YouTubers Wajahat Saeed Khan and Haider Raza Mehdi; and retired army officers Adil Raja and Akbar Hussain.

According to the court order, the charges against the men stemmed from the violent unrest that erupted in May 2023 following the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan in a graft case.

Keep reading

4chan and Kiwi Farms Tell Ofcom It Can’t Censor and Run From Lawsuits

Attorneys representing 4chan and Kiwi Farms have filed an opposition to the UK Office of Communications’ (Ofcom) motion to dismiss their US lawsuit, arguing that the British regulator’s attempt to enforce its Online Safety Act (OSA) on American platforms amounts to unlawful foreign censorship and overreach into the United States’ constitutional domain.

The filing, made in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on December 29, 2025, contends that Ofcom’s actions, sending legally binding “Section 100 Orders” via email to compel compliance with the OSA, violate US sovereignty and the First Amendment.

We obtained a copy of the filing for you here.

The plaintiffs assert that Ofcom’s conduct has no legal force in the United States because it bypassed all recognized international service procedures, including the Hague Service Convention and the US–UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.

Lawyers Ron Coleman and Preston Byrne argue that Ofcom’s regulatory model functions like a commercial enterprise rather than a sovereign body, funded through fees extracted from companies it regulates.

Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the plaintiffs maintain that this structure places Ofcom’s operations within the “commercial activity” exception, thereby stripping it of immunity from suit in US courts.

The opposition brief situates the dispute within a broader geopolitical context, describing a “diplomatic standoff” between Washington and London over the reach of online speech laws.

Keep reading

Polish Deputy Minister Urges EU Investigation Into TikTok Over Videos Promoting “Polexit”

A senior Polish official is pressing the European Commission to take action against TikTok, claiming the platform is hosting a growing number of artificial intelligence-generated videos that urge Poland to withdraw from the European Union.

His appeal, directed to Brussels’ top digital regulator, calls for what amounts to a censorship regime over AI-generated speech.

Deputy Minister of Digital Affairs Dariusz Standerski wrote to Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen, who oversees the EU’s Tech Sovereignty, Security, and Democracy portfolio, insisting that the European Commission open a Digital Services Act (DSA) investigation into TikTok.

He accused the company of failing to build “appropriate mechanisms” to detect and moderate AI-created content and of neglecting to provide “effective” transparency tools that could trace how such material is produced.

The letter went further, urging the Commission to introduce “interim measures aimed at limiting the further dissemination of artificial intelligence-generated content that encourages Poland to withdraw from the European Union.”

Keep reading