Tag: social media

UK Tech Secretary Urges Ofcom to Fast-Track Censorship Law Enforcement

UK Technology Secretary Liz Kendall is pressing Ofcom to accelerate the rollout of the controversial censorship law, the Online Safety Act, warning that delays could weaken protections for vulnerable users. In a letter to the communications regulator, she said:

“I remain deeply concerned that delays in implementing duties, such as user empowerment, could hinder our work to protect women and girls from harmful content and protect users from antisemitism.”

Kendall is determined to enforce the controversial law quickly, even as more people have finally realized that the Online Safety Act grants excessive power to regulators over what citizens can say or share online.

Ofcom has confirmed that it expects to publish by July next year a register identifying which companies will face the strictest obligations, including mandatory age verification.

That schedule is roughly a year later than initially promised. The regulator said the delay was due to “factors beyond its control,” citing a legal challenge that raised “complex issues.”

One challenge involves 4chan and Kiwi Farms, platforms often targeted by politicians seeking tighter online speech regulation.

Reclaim The Net recently reported that 4chan’s legal team had rejected Ofcom’s attempt to impose fines under the Act, arguing that the regulator’s enforcement powers overreach.

The law has also drawn criticism abroad.

The US State Department condemned the UK’s online censorship laws, including the Online Safety Act, warning that the powers granted to Ofcom could restrict the open exchange of ideas.

We also covered the growing concern among technology companies that the Act’s broad language and compliance costs could force them to reconsider their presence in the UK.

Keep reading

At COP30, Countries Sign First-ever Declaration to Control Info on Climate

Germany, France, Canada, and Belgium are among 12 nations that signed on to the “Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change,” documenting the so-called “threats” that free speech and the free press pose to what U.S. President Donald Trump refers to as the climate “con job.”

Signed at the United Nations’ COP30, the UN’s annual climate confab, the declaration marks the first time that “information integrity” has been on the docket for COP’s Action Agenda.

The rise of independent media, social media, and the internet has created a source of non-establishment news that has elevated legitimate criticism of the so-called man-made climate-change agenda.

Rather than addressing concerns about the UN’s horrible track record of climate predictions, the failure of “green” energy, and the astounding hypocrisy of climate evangelists’ jet-setting across the globe in private jets emitting mass amounts of carbon, the UN has instead turned to censorship and narrative control.

Defeating the “Obscurantists”

In the opening address at COP30, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva targeted anyone who dares to question the man-made climate-agenda.

“In the era of disinformation, obscurantists reject not only scientific evidence but also the progress of multilateralism. They control algorithms, sow hatred, and spread fear. They attack institutions, science, and universities. It is time to once again defeat the denialists,” he said.

Arguing that “obscurantists” control algorithms beggars belief. In fact, it is the UN that has openly admitted to rigging algorithms with Google to prioritize UN narratives regarding climate change.

“We partnered with Google,” said Melissa Fleming, the UN’s under-secretary-general for global communications. “For example, if you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of UN resources.”

Fleming revealed that the collaboration started when UN officials were “shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top.”

Pushing Propaganda

But how will the UN “defeat the denialists” who are allegedly controlling the narrative? First, the declaration acknowledges the necessity of narrative control to continue the UN’s climate doomsaying:

[We are] concerned by the growing impact of disinformation, misinformation, denialism, deliberate attacks on environmental journalists, defenders, scientists, researchers and other public voices and other tactics used to undermine the integrity of information on climate change, which diminish public understanding, delay urgent action, and threaten the global climate response and societal stability.

The signatory nations also refer to the Global Digital Compact, adopted by UN members at the Summit of the Future in 2024, which sets forth a global framework for digital cooperation for artificial intelligence, controlling algorithms, and digital control.

Encouraging policies that will bolster climate propaganda at both the international and local level is crucial, the declaration states.

Through promoting and supporting the “sustainability of a diverse and resilient media ecosystem,” the signatory nations affirm that the man-made climate-change narrative cannot survive scrutiny without “equitable access to accurate, consistent, evidence-based, and understandable information on climate change for all stakeholders.”

Keep reading

Brussels Aims at WhatsApp in the Next Round of Speech Control

Meta’s WhatsApp platform is set to come under tighter European oversight as regulators prepare to bring its “channels” feature under the European Union’s far-reaching censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), the same framework that already pressures Facebook and Instagram.

According to Bloomberg, people familiar with the matter say the European Commission has informed Meta that WhatsApp’s channels are being prepared for designation as a “Very Large Online Platform.”

That classification carries extensive responsibilities for content censorship. Although no public date has been announced, the Commission’s notice indicates that WhatsApp will soon face some of the most demanding digital rules in the world.

Channels, which allow public updates from news outlets, public figures, and organizations, function more like social media feeds than private chats.

WhatsApp reported earlier this year that these channels reached around 46.8 million users in Europe by late 2024, slightly above the DSA’s 45 million-user threshold for stricter oversight.

Once a service crosses that line, it must perform regular assessments of how illegal or “harmful” content circulates and develop strategies to limit its spread. Platforms are also required to publish user figures twice a year and risk fines of up to 6 percent of global revenue for failing to comply.

The DSA does not apply to private, encrypted communication, so WhatsApp’s core messaging service will remain unaffected.

Still, the EU’s decision to expand its regulatory reach into new areas of online conversation has caused concern that these rules could burden companies and discourage open dialogue in the name of safety.

The European Commission has remained cautious about providing details, saying only that it “cannot confirm the timeline for a potential future designation.”

For Meta, the move adds another chapter to its ongoing disputes with European regulators.

Keep reading

EU’s “Democracy Shield” Centralizes Control Over Online Speech

European authorities have finally unveiled the “European Democracy Shield,” we’ve been warning about for some time, a major initiative that consolidates and broadens existing programs of the European Commission to monitor and restrict digital information flows.

Though branded as a safeguard against “foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI)” and “disinformation,” the initiative effectively gives EU institutions unprecedented authority over the online public sphere.

At its core, the framework fuses a variety of mechanisms into a single structure, from AI-driven content detection and regulation of social media influencers to a state-endorsed web of “fact-checkers.”

The presentation speaks of defending democracy, yet the design reveals a machinery oriented toward centralized control of speech, identity, and data.

One of the more alarming integrations links the EU’s Digital Identity program with content filtering and labelling systems.

The Commission has announced plans to “explore possible further measures with the Code’s signatories,” including “detection and labelling of AI-generated and manipulated content circulating on social media services” and “voluntary user-verification tools.”

Officials describe the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet as a means for “secure identification and authentication.”

In real terms, tying verified identity to online activity risks normalizing surveillance and making anonymity in expression a thing of the past.

The Democracy Shield also includes the creation of a “European Centre for Democratic Resilience,” led by Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath.

Framed as a voluntary coordination hub, its mission is “building capacities to withstand foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) and disinformation,” involving EU institutions, Member States, and “neighboring countries and like-minded partners.”

The Centre’s “Stakeholder Platform” is to unite “trusted stakeholders such as civil society organisations, researchers and academia, fact-checkers and media providers.”

In practice, this structure ties policymaking, activism, and media oversight into one cooperative network, eroding the boundaries between government power and public discourse.

Financial incentives reinforce the system. A “European Network of Fact-Checkers” will be funded through EU channels, positioned as independent yet operating within the same institutional framework that sets the rules.

The network will coordinate “fact-checking” in every EU language, maintain a central database of verdicts, and introduce “a protection scheme for fact-checkers in the EU against threats and harassment.”

Such an arrangement destroys the line between independent verification and state-aligned narrative enforcement.

Keep reading

Elizabeth Warren Gets DRAGGED on Twitter/X Over Billionaire-Bashing Post With Zohran Mamdani

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts recently posted a photo of herself with New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani in which she bashes billionaires and says ‘tax the rich.’

This is hilarious on multiple levels. Elizabeth Warren is a multi-millionaire. Zohran Mamdani’s parents are multi-millionaires. Also, Elizabeth Warren has been photographed with billionaire Alex Soros, son of George Soros.

The most important thing to remember here, is that whenever something happens in the United States that excites the progressive left, you will find Elizabeth Warren standing in front of it, claiming it as her own, desperate to associate herself with it.

She has ZERO interest in being a mere U.S. senator from Massachusetts. She sees herself as a national figure.

On a side note, does she own another outfit? Every time you see her, she is wearing this same get-up and the only thing that changes is the pastel color of her blazer. It’s like a uniform.

Keep reading

DOJ asked to reveal names of Israeli influencers in US

In late September, RS reported that Israel is paying a cohort of 14-18 social media influencers an estimated $7,000 per post through a firm called Bridges Partners. The filing, disclosed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, indicated that Israel began paying these influencers in June as part of a campaign called the “Esther Project.”

Yet, despite this cohort posting on social media for the past five months, not a single influencer working for Israel appears to have publicly acknowledged their work for Israel. Today, the Quincy Institute (the parent organization of RS) and Public Citizen sent a joint letter to the Department of Justice in an effort to change that.

The letter asks the Department of Justice to compel Bridges Partners to “publicly disclose the names, addresses, and contracts of the influencers paid to perform services on behalf of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs” as all registered foreign agents are required to do by law.

“Despite their legal obligation to register as agents of a foreign principal, none of these Influencers have filed the required registration statements with the Department of Justice,” reads the letter. To date, the only registered foreign agent on the Bridges Partners contract is Uri Steinberg, an Israeli citizen and Tel Aviv-based consultant with experience in the Israeli Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Tourism.

Craig Holman, Government Affairs Lobbyist for Public Citizen, explained in an email to RS that by concealing the identities of the influencers, Americans are left in the dark. “Americans deserve to know who is paying for the messages being transmitted through social media influencers,” said Holman.

Ben Freeman, Director of QI’s Democratizing Foreign Policy program, told RS last month that the influencers themselves need to register as foreign agents. “If these influencers are knowingly accepting money from the Israeli government to produce content for the Israeli government that’s being viewed by thousands or millions of their followers in the U.S., it’s not at all clear why they would not be required to register under FARA,” said Freeman.

While the letter focuses on Bridges Partners, there may be other influencers on separate contracts being paid by Israel. A firm called Genesis 21 Consulting was hired by the Israeli government in August for “Strategic communications support, content creation, and influencer outreach aimed at improving Israel’s public image.”

A filing disclosed by another firm working for Israel called Show Faith by Works indicated the firm would “identify Social Media influencers to hire in exchange for favorable coverage” as part of a $3.2 million contract to influence evangelical Christians.The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs later told Haaretz that, “Claims regarding an agreement between the State of Israel and the company Show Faith concerning geofencing and payments to influencers are false.”

Keep reading

Hood County Sheriff Arrests Man for Social Media Posts

The Hood County Sheriff’s Office arrested Kolton Krottinger, a Navy veteran and local Granbury activist, for a social media post.

According to a criminal complaint, Krottinger had posted on social media under the guise of someone else. Residents have suggested that the October 2 post—showing another local activist appearing to support then-Granbury school board candidate Monica Brown—is the one in question.

Hood County Constable John Shirley said he thought the post was a joke, and that the individual the post impersonated would never have supported Brown “because she very openly, loudly, and publicly hates her.”

Krottinger was charged on November 5 with “online impersonation” in the third degree. His lawyer, Rob Christian, said he had been arrested for “posting a meme.” In his 25 years as a district attorney and criminal defense attorney, Christian told the Dallas Express he had “never seen anyone get arrested for engaging in political speech.”

Nate Criswell, former Hood County GOP chair, believes the arrest is politically motivated. “This charge is based on a satirical post where he humorously photoshopped a political rival’s image, making it appear as though she supported Monica Brown for school board,” he wrote in a petition he started for law enforcement to drop the charges. “Importantly, no actual account was created, making the charge baseless and unfair. Additionally, other elements of the statute were not met.”

Constable Shirley, who serves criminal and civil papers in the county’s 2nd precinct, agreed that something about the arrest seems wrong. “This kind of stuff really smells of authoritarianism.”

Texas Scorecard obtained a copy of the conditions of Krottinger’s $10,000 bond. He cannot access social media, nor can he have any contact with the other activist. Criswell said social media is where Kolton makes his livelihood and called the social media ban “egregious.”

Brandon Hall, who represents Granbury and others in District 11 on the State Board of Education, expressed alarm.

Keep reading

EU to establish ‘Ministry of Truth’ – Guardian

The European Union is planning to launch a centralized hub for monitoring and countering what it calls foreign “disinformation,” according to a leaked document seen by the Guardian. Critics have long warned that Brussels’ initiatives amount to the institutionalization of a censorship regime.

According to the European Commission proposal, set to be published on November 12, the so-called Centre for Democratic Resilience will function as part of a broader “democracy shield” strategy, pitched by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen ahead of the 2024 European elections.

Participation in the center will be voluntary, and the Commission has welcomed “like-minded partners” outside the bloc, including the UK and countries seeking accession.

The draft accuses Russia of escalating “hybrid attacks” by disseminating false narratives, while also pointing to China as another threat – alleging that Beijing uses PR firms and social media influencers to advance its interests across Europe.

Keep reading

Court Keeps California’s Online ID Law Dream Alive

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to rehear NetChoice v. Bonta, leaving intact its earlier decision that upheld most of California’s new social media law, Senate Bill 976, also known as the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act.

NetChoice, the tech trade group behind the challenge, said it “will explore all available options to protect free speech and privacy online” after the denial of its petition for rehearing on November 6, 2025.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 976 into law in September 2024.

The legislation compels social media platforms to implement “age assurance” measures to identify whether users are adults or minors.

This would likely mean platforms have to introduce some form of digital ID check to allow people to view or post.

Those requirements are not yet active, as California’s Attorney General has until January 1, 2027, to finalize the specific rules.

Attorney General Rob Bonta began the initial rulemaking process in October 2025.

NetChoice first sued in November 2024, arguing that SB 976 forces Californians to hand over personal documents just to engage in lawful online speech, a demand the group says violates the First Amendment.

On September 9, 2025, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel mostly upheld the law, finding that it was too soon to determine whether the age assurance mandate would restrict free expression before the details of that process are set.

As a result, the Attorney General can continue developing the state’s age assurance framework, while NetChoice or other organizations may bring a new legal challenge once the regulations are issued.

In its prior decision, the Ninth Circuit also removed one element of the law requiring children’s accounts to automatically hide likes and comments. Writing for the court, Judge Ryan Nelson concluded that the rule “is not the least restrictive way to advance California’s interest in protecting minors’ mental health.”

The rest of SB 976, including its age verification and content feed restrictions, remains largely intact.

The panel emphasized that without finalized regulations, it cannot yet decide whether these requirements would suppress lawful speech or create privacy risks.

NetChoice has continued to warn that the statute grants the state too much power over how people access and share information online. “NetChoice is largely disappointed in the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and we will consider all available avenues to defend the First Amendment,” said Paul Taske, Co-Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center.

He added, “California’s law usurps the role of parents and gives the government more power over how legal speech is shared online. By mandating mass collection of sensitive data from adults and minors, it will undermine the security and privacy of families, putting them at risk of cybercrime such as identity theft.”

Keep reading

Telegram Pushes Back as Australia’s Online Censorship Battle Heats Up

Australia’s continuing clash over online speech has deepened after the Federal Court ordered Telegram to define the limits of its lawsuit against eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant by November 7.

The directive followed complaints from the regulator that Telegram had widened its challenge beyond what it originally filed, introducing new arguments at a late stage.

The dispute centers on the controversial Online Safety Act 2021, which gives the eSafety Commissioner broad authority to demand information from online platforms about their handling of “harmful” content and to impose penalties for non-compliance.

Telegram is challenging both the Commissioner’s authority under that law and the A$957,780 ($622k) fine issued earlier this year after it allegedly missed a reporting deadline.

In March 2024, eSafety issued notices to six major technology companies, including Google, Meta, X, Reddit, WhatsApp, and Telegram.

The notices required detailed reports about how each company was combating material connected to “terror and violent extremism” and demanded responses within 49 days.

According to eSafety, Telegram failed to comply within that timeframe, leading to the fine on February 24, 2025.

Telegram has rejected both the fine and the regulator’s jurisdiction.

The company argues that it is not a “provider of social-media services” under the law and therefore cannot be bound by Section 56(2), which authorizes eSafety to compel cooperation from social media or electronic service providers.

Telegram also claims that it never received the March 2024 notice because it was sent to an incorrect address in Dubai and to unrelated email inboxes. The company maintains that it only learned of the request in late August 2024 and still provided responses in October “in circumstances where it was not compelled to do so.”

During a recent hearing, eSafety’s lawyer Philip Solomon said Telegram had suddenly expanded its case to challenge not only the legality of the reporting notice but also the fine itself.

Keep reading