Tag: social media

Congress Takes Another Step Toward Enabling Broad Internet Censorship

The House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday advanced the TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146) , a bill that seeks to speed up the removal of certain kinds of troubling online content. While the bill is meant to address a serious problem—the distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII)—the notice-and-takedown system it creates is an open invitation for powerful people to pressure websites into removing content they dislike. 

As we’ve written before, while protecting victims of these heinous privacy invasions is a legitimate goal, good intentions alone are not enough to make good policy. 

This bill mandates a notice-and-takedown system that threatens free expression, user privacy, and due process, without meaningfully addressing the problem it claims to solve. The “takedown” provision applies to a much broader category of content—potentially any images involving intimate or sexual content at all—than the narrower NCII definitions found elsewhere in the bill. The bill contains no protections against frivolous or bad-faith takedown requests. Lawful content—including satire, journalism, and political speech—could be wrongly censored. 

The legislation’s 48-hour takedown deadline means that online service providers, particularly smaller ones, will have to comply quickly to avoid legal risks. That time crunch will make it impossible for services to verify the content is in fact NCII. Instead, services will rely on automated filters—infamously blunt tools that frequently flag legal content, from fair-use commentary to news reporting.

Keep reading

Leftist KTLA Scrambles for Cover After Posting “N-Word” on Social Media — Claims It Was a “Technical Error”

KTLA, widely regarded as a mouthpiece for the California Democrat Party, is under fire after a shocking racial slur was posted to its official account on X.

The Los Angeles-based outlet is now scrambling to save face, claiming the shocking post was nothing more than a “technical error.”

The now-deleted post, which included the full “N-word,” was live on KTLA’s X account long enough to spark immediate backlash.

KTLA quickly attempted to downplay the incident, blaming a so-called “technical error” related to a language filter gone wrong.

According to the carefully curated PR statement, the station claimed: “KTLA experienced a technical error while adding language filters to our social media accounts, resulting in an offensive word being accidentally shared. We are appalled and apologize that this occurred.”

Keep reading

BitChute Discontinues Video-Sharing Service for UK Residents Over Online Censorship Laws

BitChute, a platform widely recognized for its commitment to free expression and open discourse, has officially withdrawn its services from the United Kingdom, citing untenable regulatory conditions under the UK’s recently enacted censorship law, the Online Safety Act. The move comes in direct response to regulator Ofcom’s newly enhanced authority, which enables the communications regulator to levy fines as high as 10% of a company’s global revenue if deemed non-compliant with the Act’s sweeping censorship demands.

This shift in regulatory climate marks what some view as a profound erosion of digital freedoms in the UK. BitChute’s decision could serve as the first signal of a broader exodus, with other international platforms potentially following suit to avoid the heavy-handed oversight now codified in British law.

In a detailed public statement posted to its website, BitChute explained the rationale behind the drastic step:

“After careful review and ongoing evaluation of the regulatory landscape in the United Kingdom, we regret to inform you that BitChute will be discontinuing its video-sharing service for UK residents.”

The platform highlighted the unpredictable and burdensome nature of the new legal framework, emphasizing the Act’s expansive mandates on content moderation and the discretionary powers it grants Ofcom to enforce them. BitChute warned that these provisions create an environment of legal ambiguity, placing platforms at the mercy of vague standards and severe penalties.

“The BitChute platform has always operated on principles of freedom of speech, expression and association…However, the evolving regulatory pressures—including strict enforcement mechanisms and potential liabilities—have created an operational landscape in which continuing to serve the UK market exposes our company to unacceptable legal and compliance risks.”

The company has implemented immediate restrictions: UK residents can still upload content to the platform, but none of their videos will be accessible to other UK-based users. Their content will remain viewable to users in other countries, who can interact with it as usual.

“The significant change will be that this UK user-posted content will not be viewable by any other UK user, but will be visible to other users outside of the UK.”

This effectively means that while UK-based creators are not entirely barred from participation, their voices are now digitally cordoned off from fellow citizens, a result of legal constraints rather than technical ones.

Keep reading

Florida’s New Social Media Bill Says the Quiet Part Out Loud and Demands an Encryption Backdoor

At least Florida’s SB 868/HB 743, “Social Media Use By Minors” bill isn’t beating around the bush when it states that it would require “social media platforms to provide a mechanism to decrypt end-to-end encryption when law enforcement obtains a subpoena.” Usually these sorts of sweeping mandates are hidden behind smoke and mirrors, but this time it’s out in the open: Florida wants a backdoor into any end-to-end encrypted social media platforms that allow accounts for minors. This would likely lead to companies not offering end-to-end encryption to minors at all, making them less safe online.

Encryption is the best tool we have to protect our communication online. It’s just as important for young people as it is for everyone else, and the idea that Florida can “protect” minors by making them less safe is dangerous and dumb.

The bill is not only privacy-invasive, it’s also asking for the impossible. As breaches like Salt Typhoon demonstrate, you cannot provide a backdoor for just the “good guys,” and you certainly cannot do so for just a subset of users under a specific age. After all, minors are likely speaking to their parents and other family members and friends, and they deserve the same sorts of privacy for those conversations as anyone else. Whether social media companies provide “a mechanism to decrypt end-to-end encryption” or choose not to provide end-to-end encryption to minors at all, there’s no way that doesn’t harm the privacy of everyone.

If this all sounds familiar, that’s because we saw a similar attempt from an Attorney General in Nevada last year. Then, like now, the reasoning is that law enforcement needs access to these messages during criminal investigations. But this doesn’t hold true in practice.

In our amicus brief in Nevada, we point out that there are solid arguments that “content oblivious” investigation methods—like user reporting— are “considered more useful than monitoring the contents of users’ communications when it comes to detecting nearly every kind of online abuse.” That remains just as true in Florida today.

Law enforcement can and does already conduct plenty of investigations involving encrypted messages, and even with end-to-end encryption, law enforcement can potentially access the contents of most messages on the sender or receiver’s devices, particularly when they have access to the physical device. The bill also includes measures prohibiting minors from accessing any sort of ephemeral messaging features, like view once options or disappearing messages. But even with those features, users can still report messages or save them. Targeting specific features does nothing to protect the security of minors, but it would potentially harm the privacy of everyone.

Keep reading

Sen. Hawley Considers Criminal Referral for Zuckerberg — Demands Testimony Under Oath After Whistleblower Exposes Meta’s Dangerous Collusion with Communist China

The globalist empire of Big Tech is being dragged into the light, and U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) is leading the charge.

In a scathing letter sent Thursday, Hawley invited Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, following explosive testimony from a former Meta executive turned whistleblower.

Sarah Wynn-Williams, who served as Facebook’s Director of Global Public Policy from 2011 to 2017, delivered a bombshell under oath: Meta didn’t just sell out American users — it surrendered to the Chinese Communist Party.

In her riveting testimony, Wynn-Williams exposed Meta’s secret project—code-named “Project Aldrin”—an initiative that allegedly handed China’s Communist regime access to sensitive U.S. artificial intelligence technologies.

Her most alarming claim? That Meta executives deliberately briefed Chinese officials on cutting-edge AI to give Beijing the upper hand over American companies.

“These briefings focused on critical emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence – explicit goal being to help China outcompete American companies,” said Wynn-Williams.

She warned that Meta’s LLaMA AI model is already being used by China in military applications and stated that the only reason the CCP doesn’t currently have unrestricted access to U.S. user data is because Congress intervened.

This is no longer just about privacy—it’s about national survival in the face of an aggressive foreign adversary, aided and abetted by America’s own Big Tech titans.

Keep reading

No, Democrats, Trump Didn’t Kill Drug Research — Here’s What Actually Happened at the NIH

Democrats are up in arms, accusing President Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) of gutting drug research funding.

Social media is flooded with dramatic claims—photos of sick children, stories of desperate patients—each suggesting that Trump has cut off their last hope. The truth, however, is far less dramatic.

The Trump administration has indeed pushed aggressive cost-cutting across federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which funds a large share of America’s drug research. But contrary to the headlines, there’s no blanket halt on medical research—far from it.

Studies continue under other federal programs and through robust private funding, supporting everything from cancer breakthroughs to rare disease therapies.

What the administration has done is implement targeted policies—like capping overhead costs and temporarily pausing some grant reviews—that have caused confusion, delays, and loud complaints from researchers and critics, but they haven’t shut down research altogether.

Here’s the real story: In February 2025, the NIH proposed capping “indirect costs”—expenses like lab maintenance and utilities—at 15%, down from the usual 27–30%.

That move would cut about $4 billion annually from the $9 billion typically allocated for such costs within the NIH’s $35 billion grant budget (based on 2023 figures, adjusted slightly for 2025).

Universities and hospitals quickly sounded the alarm, warning of layoffs and stalled projects. Then, on March 5, 2025, a federal judge in Boston issued a nationwide injunction, blocking the cuts after 22 Democratic-led states and research groups filed suit, citing bipartisan legislation that protects NIH funding.

As of April 3, the proposed cap remains tied up in court—no reductions have taken effect.

Meanwhile, shortly after Trump’s inauguration, the NIH temporarily froze most grant-review meetings, stalling roughly $1.5 billion in new research funding (Nature, February 2025).

This wasn’t a budget cut—it was a bureaucratic slowdown triggered by new oversight protocols.

Keep reading

Meta Keeps Big MAGA Accounts on Ban List as Mark Zuckerberg Lobbies Trump

Mark Zuckerberg is reportedly lobbying the Trump administration to drop a pivotal FTC case against the company, in what would amount to a major political favor for Meta. Despite Zuckerberg’s multiple olive branches to the Turmp administration, a number of high-profile, pro-MAGA voices are still banned on Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Mark Zuckerberg has made regular visits to the White House urging the president to lean on the FTC to drop its case against Meta. If the FTC were to prevail in the case, Meta could be forced to divest from WhatsApp and Instagram, breaking up the company.

In January, Zuckerberg made several public overtures to the Trump administration, praising parts of its policy platform in an appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience, and criticizing the outgoing Biden administration for its censorship demands during COVID. Zuckerberg also announced a policy pivot at Meta, promising to “get back to our roots” of supporting free speech.

Despite these pledges, several prominent anti-establishment figures remain banned on Meta platforms:

  • Laura Loomer, investigative journalist and former Republican congressional candidate who was recently credited with influencing a shakeup at the NSC.
  • Tommy Robinson, the prominent British political activist and critic of Islam.
  • Alex Jones
  • Paul Joseph Watson
  • Gavin McInnes
  • Milo Yiannopoulos, self-styled “civil rights icon” and former Breitbart News editor.

It is also unclear if Meta still maintains its “hate agents”  list of prominent anti-establishment voices uncovered by Breitbart News in 2019 that included political candidates. Or if the company has taken any steps to remedy the mass-censorship of WhatsApp accounts in Brazil, which extended to Flavio Bolsonaro, son of persecuted former president Jair Bolsonaro. In a comment to Breitbart News, the company denied it has continued to maintain its documented list of hate agents.

As the FTC trial date draws closer, Meta has drawn flak from the conservative commentariat.

Keep reading

Whistleblower Drops Bombshell During Senate Hearing: Accuses Facebook (Meta) of Secretly Aiding China in Undermining U.S. National Security 

A former Meta executive turned whistleblower just dropped a political nuke that has rocked Capitol Hill and should terrify every American who values freedom, privacy, and national sovereignty.

Sarah Wynn-Williams, once Facebook’s director of global public policy (now Meta), appeared before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism on Wednesday and leveled jaw-dropping allegations against her former employer.

That Meta knowingly briefed the Chinese Communist Party on advanced U.S. technologies, including artificial intelligence, beginning in 2015—just to get a seat at Beijing’s lucrative tech table.

“These briefings focused on critical emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence – explicit goal being to help China outcompete American companies,” said Wynn-Williams, who worked at the social media giant from 2011 to 2017, according to the New York Post.

“There’s a straight line you can draw from these briefings to the recent revelations that China is developing AI models for military use, relying on Meta’s Llama model,” she added.

Project Aldrin, as it was known internally, was Meta’s covert initiative to worm its way into the Chinese market. But according to Wynn-Williams, it wasn’t just about business—it was about compromise.

Her testimony details how Meta’s briefings helped the CCP leapfrog U.S. competitors by giving them insights into emerging technologies meant to secure America’s future.

Her disclosures didn’t stop at AI. Wynn-Williams also revealed that Meta built a censorship engine for the CCP in 2015, and in 2017, willingly took down accounts belonging to Chinese dissident Guo Wengui after pressure from Beijing.

Keep reading

Mum jailed for ‘racist’ migrant hotel tweet ‘not allowed to visit ailing husband’

A woman who was jailed for over two years after tweeting about mass deportation and setting fire to migrant hotels has been refused temporary leave to visit her sick husband. Lucy Connolly, 42, was sentenced to 31 months behind bars after an inflammatory post on social media during the Southport riots last summer.

Demonstrations broke out across the country following the vicious killing of three children at a dance class on July 29, fuelled by false claims that the attacker was an illegal immigrant. Connolly’s post, which was later deleted, read: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the b******s for all I care … If that makes me racist, so be it.” The 42-year-old has reportedly been denied temporary leave to visit her husband Ray, who is suffering from bone marrow failure, and has also had her pleas to be with her 12-year-old daughter, whose behaviour at school has been “out of character”, rejected by authorities.

Documents suggest that Connolly has been denied leave for reasons linked to concerns over public and media interest in her case, rather than issues meeting the necessary criteria, The Telegraph reported.

Prison service sources denied her application for temporary release was blocked, insisting it was being considered by the governor at HMP Drake Hall in Staffordshire, to which she has recently been transferred

A spokesperson said: “Decisions on release on temporary licence and home detention curfew are made following uncompromising risk assessments to prioritise public safety.

“These are discretionary schemes, and each case is rigorously scrutinised, considering the severity of the offence, the prisoner’s conduct and the potential impact on victims and the community.”

However, internal notes at her previous prison, HMP Peterborough, suggested that the temporary release was “not necessarily going to happen due to the public interest” and that “the media interest has been raised as an issue in terms of any future Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) applications”.

Keep reading

UK Halts “Legal but Harmful” Censorship Rule Amid US Trade Pressure, But Online Safety Act Still Fuels Free Speech and Privacy Fears

Plans to implement sweeping content moderation powers for tech companies have been put on hold by the UK government, as concerns grow that reintroducing speech controls could disrupt sensitive trade discussions with President Donald Trump’s allies.

The British Government had been exploring a return to the abandoned “legal but harmful” proposal, a measure that would have forced online platforms to purge content deemed “harmful” yet not unlawful. But after internal pushback and a wary eye on Washington’s stance, the idea has been quietly dropped.

The original measure, introduced under Conservative leadership in 2022, triggered significant dissent, including from within the party itself. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, then serving as business secretary, dismissed the idea, warning it could mean “legislating for hurt feelings.” The proposal was ultimately replaced with tools that give individuals more choice over the material they encounter online rather than imposing top-down restrictions.

According to reports, the recent move to distance the government from any revival of the censorship clause comes amid Labour’s review of the Online Safety Act, launched after riots last summer linked to false claims about a Southport attacker. While that review sparked fresh debate over “misinformation,” officials have opted not to revisit the “legal but harmful” language, choosing instead to emphasize online protections for children.

Labour appears focused on building upon new safety measures coming into force this summer, including mandatory age checks for adult content. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle is working on a package aimed at strengthening youth safeguards, though these proposals stop well short of any return to compelled content takedowns.

“We are really committed to keeping children safe,” a government insider said. “Finally, the Online Safety Act is starting to have an impact, and we will see some enforcement action shortly. Age assurance will also be a massive step forward when it comes in the summer, but we’re actively exploring other ways of protecting children.”

​While the UK government’s removal of the “legal but harmful” provision from the Online Safety Act was intended to address concerns over free speech and censorship, significant issues remain. The Act still imposes broad duties on online platforms to assess and mitigate risks associated with user-generated content.

Keep reading