The Online Harms White Paper was released by the UK state today (08/04/2019.) The state claims that it is all about ‘keeping us safe’ online and especially keeping children safe online. Which is a very laudable objective. Who could argue with that? If you prefer to watch the video of this post, CLICK HERE.
The problem is that the Online Harms White Paper effectively establishes the legal framework for the censorship of the Internet and takes a sledge hammer to any notion that we have free speech, or a democracy, in the UK. It is precisely the kind of proposed legislation you would expect to see from a dictatorship. If it passes into law, it will create one in the UK. No matter who you vote for.
Before I get carried away, it is worth mentioning that the Online Harms White Paper has already drawn criticism and a 12 week consultation period is proposed. However, by examining the content, the intent of the state is clear. It is that intent which I address here.
When Orwell gave the world his much overused, dystopian nightmare of a people shackled to the authority of on overseeing, all powerful state, many gave thanks that they lived in a democracy. People in the West were both enthralled and horrified by his vision. They drew parallels with the perceived darkness lurking behind the Iron Curtain. But Orwell wasn’t describing life in the East, he was offering a terrifying vision of our future.
It really is not hyperbole to say, with their Online Harms White Paper, that nightmare is being proposed, right now, by the British state.
A white paper is a proposal of policy (legislation.) The Online Harms White Paper proposes the state rolls out rank censorship to control everything we say and do online. As usual, this draconian diktat is dressed up in fluffy language amid absurd claims about ensuring a ‘free, open’ Internet. Nothing could be further from the truth. The devil is always in the detail, and this devil is the Ministry of Truth. Not metaphorically, but actually.
Firstly let’s accept what appears to be reasonable. The Online Harms White Paper does pretend to address some legitimate concerns. It spends a lot of time focusing upon the sharing of terrorist propaganda, the online grooming of children, the sharing of CSE images, the use of the internet to incite violence, to isolate and abuse, bully and harass vulnerable people, particularly children. It suggests ways to stop the online selling of illegal drugs, disrupt the coordination of criminal activity by street gangs, save people from suicide and even looks at ways to address excessive screen time to reduce the known health impacts.
On the face of it there’s not much wrong with this. So this will be the claimed justification for pushing this legislation through. However those determined to commit violence and criminal acts will still do so. The Online Harms White Paper won’t even make them break their stride. Any idiot can figure that out.
If the state was actually serious about tackling terrorism it would stop funding, arming, training and equipping terrorist; If it wanted to tackle child abuse it would fund proper investigations and genuine inquiries into historic and current exploitation, not do everything in its power to stop them. This despotic proposed legislation has nothing to do with protecting vulnerable children or tackling terrorism. It is expressly designed to silence any and all who criticise the state.
Have absolutely no doubt, the Online Harms White Paper is an attempt to create a totalitarian censorship grid which will absolutely eradicate free speech and freedom of expression online.
To illustrate the point, I won’t focus on the pretence. There’s much discussion within the Online Harms White Paper of what initially appears to be sensible. This is simply the sales pitch that state mouth pieces, like the MSM, will highlight ad nauseum. I leave them to carry out their work.
Instead, let’s look at the reams of free speech censorship which really characterises this abomination. Section by section.
The Problem
“The prevalence of the most serious illegal content and activity, which threatens our national security or the physical safety of children, is unacceptable”
Threats to national security are cited throughout the Online Harms White Paper as a primary concern of the state. People using the Internet are considered a threat. As a result the state has decided they need to stop people freely sharing information online.
The real ‘problem’ is that claims of ‘threats to national security’ have been repeatedly abused by the state, over the years, to lie and obfuscate. There is no reason at all to believe anything has changed. Here a just a few of a very long list of state acts covered up using the claim of ‘threats to national security.’
- Used to unlawfully censor a BBC investigative documentary about the Zircon spy satellite.
- Used to unlawfully suppress the Guardian from discussing Peter Wright’s ‘Spycatcher’ revelations.
- Used to hide allegations of torture made by British special forces against U.S troops in Iraq.
- Used to unlawfully suppress media reports about the imprisonment of whistleblowers, who revealed the minutes of a private meeting between Bush and Blair, which led to allegations of war crimes in Falluja, Iraq.
- Used to unlawfully suppress revelations about the state torture of Binyam Mohamed.
- Used to hide the relationship between Sergei Skripal and his Mi6 handler Pablo Miller (more on this later.)
I could go on, but you get the point.
“Online platforms……can be used to undermine our democratic values and debate……There is also a real danger that hostile actors use online disinformation to undermine our democratic values and principles.”
Now we’re getting to the meat and potatoes. This is what this malign legislative proposal is really about. The state is setting itself, and its ‘trusted stakeholder partners,’ as the arbiter of truth. The state will decide what’s true and what’s not. This is precisely the ‘Minstry of Truth’ Orwell implored us to resist.
“Other online behaviours or content, even if they may not be illegal in all circumstances, can also cause serious harm.”
Please consider the implications of this statement. Of course it is right to censure those who incite violence of entice others to commit crime, we already have laws to do that, but the Online Harm White Paper decrees that the state will decide what is acceptable for you to say on the Internet. Even if it isn’t illegal.
Think about that!
Our (The State’s) Response
“This White Paper sets out a programme of action to tackle content or activity that harms…. or threatens our way of life in the UK, either by undermining national security, or by undermining our shared rights, responsibilities and opportunities to foster integration.”
There is nothing in the Online Harms White Paper that defines what ‘harm’ is. In 1859 John Stuart Mill drew a clear distinction between ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ harm. This proposed legislation makes no such distinction. ‘Harm,’ is whatever the state says it is.
“international partners are also developing new regulatory approaches”
Because this is a global initiative. There’s no escape. Combined with EU’s Internet censorship legislation there’s no doubt freedom of speech in Europe will soon be over.
“established a regulatory framework that tackles this range of online harms”
So it would be good to know what the definition of ‘harm’ is. That isn’t disclosed, so we have to question if it exists.
“Our vision is for:
•A free, open and secure internet.
•Freedom of expression online.
If true, the best thing to do would be to rigorously enforce the existing incitement laws which stop people promoting unlawful acts. The spurious suggestion that this legislation doesn’t destroy freedom of speech and expression takes hypocrisy to new levels.
While shutting down freedom of speech and seizing control of the Internet, at the same time, undoubtedly in an attempt to distract attention away from this oppression, the British state was claiming on the world stage that it is the protector of press freedoms. A sickening irony.
•Rules and norms for the internet that discourage harmful behaviour.
Not ‘illegal’ remember, but rather some vague, undefined, malleable claim of ‘harm.’
•Citizens…..understand the risks of online activity, challenge unacceptable behaviours and know how to access help if they experience harm online, with children receiving extra protection.
The sales pitch to hide an unpalatable truth. This legislation exposes everyone to the unrestricted acts of a secret state. Historically, far more harmful than any known online ‘harms.’
•A global coalition of countries all taking coordinated steps to keep their citizens safe online.
Because it is all about the globalist’s vision of a one world government. As personified by the Rapid Response Mechanism, allowing G7 states to coordinate the official narrative of global events. As the MSM are completely state controlled, this legislation ensures any questioning of those narratives will be silenced. This is its purpose.
Clarity For Companies
“The new regulatory framework this White Paper describes will set clear standards to help companies ensure safety of users while protecting freedom of expression, especially in the context of harmful content or activity that may not cross the criminal threshold but can be particularly damaging to children or other vulnerable users.”
This has nothing to do with tackling criminality. If it did, then it’s purpose would be to tackle activity that does cross the criminal threshold. But it’s not. It won’t work in the fight to stop genuine criminal, ‘legitimate harm.’ Do you think censoring YouTube, controlling search results, limiting social media shares or stopping people from sharing their thoughts and ideas online will deter terrorists or paedophiles? Will they just give up, because they can’t use Instagram? It is an absurd suggestion.
The Online Harms White Paper does precisely ‘jack’ to tackle any of these problems. It adds nothing of any value at all to existing laws. Perhaps if the Police weren’t chronically underfunded by the state, they could be more rigorous in enforcing the laws we already have.
This legislation is not about protecting people, it is about removing your right to free speech. Don’t be fooled into thinking otherwise.
A New Regulatory Framework For Online Safety
Here the state lays out what their regulatory framework will be.
“The regulator will have a suite of powers…..This may include the powers to issue substantial fines and to impose liability on individual members of senior management.”
Enforcing these ‘standards’ will only be affordable for the wealthiest platforms. Further corralling Internet users into a heavily restricted, state controlled, ‘safe space.’
“Reflecting the threat to national security……..the government will have the power to direct the regulator in relation to codes of practice”
Throughout the Online Harms White Paper the state keeps banging on about the ‘independent regulator.’ Another sales pitch. The state will completely control the regulator.
“to ensure that companies proactively report on both emerging and known harms.”
The creation of an online, privatised, corporate police state which will actively spy on everyone who uses the Internet.
“……..allowing designated bodies to make ‘super complaints’ to the regulator in order to defend the needs of users.”
All are equal, but some chosen ‘partners’ (private corporations) are more equal than others.
The Companies In Scope of The Regulatory Framework
This section stipulates who will be effected by the censor grid and who is targeted for ‘non compliance.’
“companies that allow users to share or discover user-generated content or interact with each other online.”
“These services are offered by a very wide range of companies of all sizes, including social media platforms, file hosting sites, public discussion forums, messaging services and search engines.”
“We are consulting on definitions of private communications, and what measures should apply to these services.”
In other words, the entire Internet and everyone who uses it. Only the Internet giants and the MSM will be able to afford the technological demands brought into being with the Online Harms White Paper. The Internet is about to get a lot smaller.
“These technologies could be made available to start-up or small companies.”
They could but they won’t, unless the state approves.
An Independent Regulator For Online Safety
It isn’t remotely independent. The Online Harm white Paper makes that abundantly clear.
“An independent regulator will implement, oversee and enforce the new regulatory framework.”
No it won’t. The state will.
“The regulator will take a risk-based approach, prioritising action to tackle activity or content where there is the greatest evidence or threat of harm……To support this, the regulator will work closely with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and other partners to improve the evidence base.”
UKRI is an organ of the state which, under this legislation, will ensure the academic world stays ‘on message.’ Restricting academia and scientific endeavor only to that which is sanctioned by the state. Independent innovation and research, such as it still exists, is finally killed off by the Online Harms White Paper.
“We are clear that the regulator will not be responsible for policing truth and accuracy online.”
Yes it will. The Online Harms White Paper makes sure of it.
“….the full range of the regulator’s activity, including producing codes of practice, enforcing the duty of care, preparing transparency reports, and any education and awareness activities undertaken by the regulator”
The state intends to train us to think properly.
Enforcement of the Regulatory Framework
Here we see the impact of this censorship law.
“The regulator will have a range of enforcement powers, including the power to levy substantial fines”
“We are consulting on which enforcement powers the regulator should have at its disposal, particularly to ensure a level playing field between companies that have a legal presence in the UK, and those which operate entirely from overseas.”
“In particular, we are consulting on powers that would enable the regulator to disrupt the business activities of a non-compliant company, measures to impose liability on individual members of senior management, and measures to block non-compliant services.”
“The new regulatory framework will increase the responsibility of online services in a way that is compatible with the EU’s e-Commerce Directive”
Working with their partners in the EU, because Brexit was just a charade, the Online Harms White Paper restricts Internet services only to those authorised by the state. The state will crush all who do not comply. The Internet is only for the state’s chosen partners.
Technology As Part of the Solution
“The government will also work with industry and civil society to develop a safety by design framework, linking up with existing legal obligations around data protection by design and secure by design principles, to make it easier for start-ups and small businesses to embed safety during the development or update of products and services.”
The duplicity in this statement is staggering. The technological costs of implementing all this will rule out any small to medium scale ‘start up’ businesses. The Internet will become the sole province of wealthy corporations. Which is the other reason for this power grab.
Empowering Users
“The government will develop a new online media literacy strategy. This will be developed in broad consultation with stakeholders, including major digital, broadcast and news media organisations, the education sector, researchers and civil society. This strategy will ensure a coordinated and strategic approach to online media literacy education and awareness for children, young people and adults.”
The children are going to be indoctrinated by the state to accept nothing but ‘groupthink‘ and only to believe Newspeak.
The Challenge
“British citizens want to feel empowered to keep themselves and their children safe and secure online. Both the government and industry have a responsibility to ensure this is the case.”
British citizens are not clamouring to have the Internet censored. The state’s claim that British citizens ‘want to feel empowered’ is all based upon research carried out by the state. Until today, most people had never heard of the Online Harms White Paper and millions still don’t know it exists. They will wake up one morning, in a few months time, to discover they can’t use the Internet like they used to. There’s no choice, and certainly no ’empowerment.’
“Terrorist groups place a huge premium on quickly reaching their audiences. A third of all links to Daesh propaganda, for example, are disseminated within an hour of upload, while in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack in Christchurch, there was a co-ordinated cross-platform effort to generate maximum reach of footage of the attack. It is therefore vital to ensure that there is the technology in place to automatically detect and remove terrorist content within an hour of upload, secure the prevention of re-upload and prevent, where possible, new content being made available to users at all”
The evidence strongly suggests that Daesh is a creation of the Western deep state. The ‘problem’ the state is using to justify its dictatorship was almost certainly created by the state. The ‘upload filters’ are going to be prohibitively expensive to all but global corporations. The Online Harms White Paper dovetails neatly with the EU’s copyright directive which imposes the same requirements. This may explain the possible vote rigging which enabled the EU’s directive to pass.
Threats To Our Way of Life
The state is assuming authority to define what ‘our way of life’ is, without consultation or discussion. While most of us probably believe that ‘our way of life’ is based upon freedom of speech and expression, clearly the state thinks otherwise. It appears ‘our way of life’ is another shape shifting concept to be defined by the state as it suits.
The state then goes on to reveal what it fears most, by listing some of its obscure, intangible ‘harms.’
Identified Harm: Online Disinformation.
This is the primary focus of the Online Harms White Paper. Over recent years the state has lost control of the narrative. Too many independent media outlets, foreign news agencies and independent researcher bloggers, like Robert Stuart, have been able to use the Internet to expose the genuine ‘disinformation’ of the state. The biggest purveyors of disinformation are the MSM. There are countless examples of fake stories created by the MSM to support state narratives.
Recently, thanks to the work of independent researchers, ‘alternative’ media outlets, citizen journalists and bloggers the scale of state disinformation has become abundantly clear. The Integrity Initiative is a UK state funded propaganda operation whose proven purpose is to disseminate disinformation. Just as Mi6 fed stories to Telegraph journalist Con Coughlin, who broke the Iraqi ‘WMD in 45 minutes’ story, selling the idea of an illegal war that killed millions, so the Integrity Initiative feeds disinformation to its MSM operatives (or clusters) who then report it to you as if it were genuine news.
The Internet enables people to discover these falsehoods and then share what they have found with each other. They aren’t Russian trolls of agents for a foreign power. They are predominantly ordinary British citizens. Millions are now aware that the MSM is infested with state disinformation agents. It isn’t that people don’t want a thriving ‘free and open’ mainstream media. They desperately need the press to function properly, free from state interference. Unfortunately it doesn’t. The few remaining decent journalists are being squeezed out of the MSM.
If people want to read, listen to or watch real investigative journalism then they have to go to the alternative media. It is almost completely absent form the MSM. The alternative media has grown exponentially as a reaction to the appalling levels of state, and their corporate ‘stakeholder’ partner’s, manipulation of the MSM.
Rather than simply accept what they are told, more and more people can use the Internet to check the facts behind MSM stories. When they do they often discover there are none. What can they do? Pretend they don’t know the MSM are lying? Bury their heads in the sand and blithely go along with whatever BS the state comes up with next?
The Online Harms White Paper is the state’s response. This is a massive problem for it and it is desperate to silence everyone who insists on asking it questions. So its last remaining option is to completely shut down free speech and the open and free sharing of information. That is exactly what this proposed legislation is going to do.
The MSM has also suffered massively as a result. People see they are little more than state propagandists and have stopped buying their pap. MSM reach and sales fell off a cliff and the state saw its propaganda machine collapse. It wants it back.
“The UK’s reputation and influence across the globe is founded upon our values and principles. Our society is built on confidence in public institutions, trust in electoral processes, a robust, lively and plural media, and hard-won democratic freedoms that allow different voices, views and opinions to freely and peacefully contribute to public discourse”
Note the way the language is used to deceive. Of course everyone values the ability to freely and peacefully engage in public discourse. However, our society is not built upon confidence in public institutions. Our society is based upon our constitutional rights not our belief, or trust, in the state. In fact, our constitutional rights exist to protect us from the worst excesses of the state. These rights are being utterly ignored by the state with this pernicious legislation. It is attempting to obliterate our constitution.
“Inaccurate information, regardless of intent, can be harmful – for example the spread of inaccurate anti-vaccination messaging online poses a risk to public health. The government is particularly worried about disinformation (information which is created or disseminated with the deliberate intent to mislead; this could be to cause harm, or for personal, political or financial gain).”
“Disinformation threatens these values and principles, and can threaten public safety, undermine national security, fracture community cohesion and reduce trust.”
“These concerns have been well set out in the wide-ranging inquiry led by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Select Committee report on fake news and disinformation, published on 18 February 2019. This White Paper has benefited greatly from this analysis and takes forward a number of the recommendations. The government will be responding to the DCMS Select Committee report in full in due course. We also note the recent papers from the Electoral Commission and Information Commissioner’s Office on this and wider issues, and are considering these closely.”
“The Russian State is a major source of disinformation. The Kremlin has used disinformation to obfuscate and confuse audiences around their illegal annexation of Crimea, intervention in eastern Ukraine and the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, which led to the deaths of 298 people including ten UK citizens. After the attempted murder of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury in March 2018, the Russian State led a concerted disinformation campaign to distract from their culpability. This included the use of state media and covert social media accounts to sow over 40 different narratives as to what happened.”
Where to start? All of these listed state narratives are controversial. There is a wealth of evidence which raises questions about each of them. These are based upon corroborated facts, not disinformation.
For example, it is a fact that the British state slapped a ‘D-notice’ on the MSM stopping them reporting the relationship between Sergei Skripal and his ‘former’ Mi6 handler Pablo Miller. It is a fact that Pablo Miller worked with Orbis Business Intelligence, a private intelligence outfit run by Christopher Steel. It is a fact that Christopher Steel wrote the infamous Trump ‘golden showers’ dossier, alleging the Trump campaigns collusion with the Russian state. It is a fact that The Mueller Investigation could find no evidence at all to substantiate any of these claims of Russian collusion. It is a fact that senior BBC news editor Mark Urban personally knew both Sergei Skripal and Pablo Miller. It is a fact that Mark Urban did not disclose this relationship to the public when he was reporting the ‘news’ concerning the Skripal affair.
This does not necessarily imply that the conclusions drawn from those facts are all accurate, but nor does it mean they weren’t. Many will have probably jumped to the wrong conclusions, but many won’t. Perhaps the state’s narratives are all 100% accurate and everyone else is wrong. But probably not.
It is in the public interest to know about these facts. It is also reasonable to question why the state wanted to hide the facts about the Skripal affair. The state was able to silence the MSM from reporting any of these facts because the MSM is state controlled in the UK. The state was not able to stop independent journalists and British citizens from reporting these facts. The Online Harms White Paper has been proposed to give the state absolute authority over all information and stop the reporting of facts they don’t want you to know about.
Any claim by the state that they support a ‘free and independent media’ is preposterous. We already have a growing independent media, rapidly expanding because of the Internet.
They do report on things like Sergei Skripal’s relationship network. They do hold the state to account and do ask uncomfortable questions of those in power. The state is doing everything it can to shut down the ‘free and independent media’ and return control into the hands of its compliant, corporate owned, MSM outlets.
In a free and open democracy, which we are told we live in, the people have the right to ask questions of the state. If not then the state is, by definition, a dictatorship. The Online Harms White Paper is designed to stop people asking questions and exploring evidence. If we allow the state to dictate what does and does not constitute ‘disinformation’ then all we have left is Newspeak.
I avoid prophecy because I’m invariably rubbish at it. However, if you believe this control grid won’t eventually apply to all public discourse you are deluding yourself. Please do not be deceived.
Identified Harm: Online Manipulation.
This spells out, in no uncertain terms, the states intention to silence all criticism.
“The tolerance of conflicting views and ideas are core facets of our democracy. However, these are inherently vulnerable to the efforts of a few to manipulate and confuse the information environment for nefarious purposes, including undermining trust.”
“The distinction between legitimate influence and illegitimate manipulation is not new……..We believe the government should make sure there are similar boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate practices online.”
That the state is referencing the harm principle established by Mill is a travesty. Mill was clear that there was a clear distinction between causing offence, saying something other people don’t like, and actively inciting people to cause real physical harm. This legislation is a 180 degree inversion of Mill’s harm principle. Hate speech legislation is just one example of how the state has persistently sought to introduce the idea that being offended, which is completely subjective, is an acceptable basis to silence critics in law.
The state is telling you that you MUST trust everything it says. If you don’t you are confused and have been ‘illegitimately’ manipulated. The state will ‘make sure’ you are clear about the truth. Any who suggest anything contrary to the states narrative will be silenced, and if they won’t shut up, punished.
Identified Harm: Online Abuse of Public Figures.
You will not criticise the political elite. The wrong questions will constitute ‘abuse.’
“In December 2017 the Committee for Standards in Public Life, which was commissioned by the Prime Minister, published its report on intimidation in public life.49 The consultation sought views on a range of ideas including establishing a new offence of intimidation”
Now we see how this system, designed to stop anyone asking the political elite questions they don’t want to answer, will work. By creating a new law the signalled intention is very clear.
“The report also makes a number of recommendations for actions that social media companies should take in relation to intimidatory content, including implementing tools to enhance the ability of users to tackle online intimidation”
‘Intimidatory’ content eh? So repeatedly asking questions, by writing awkward blog posts for example, or sharing them online (which the EU copyright directive makes impossible anyway), that state official and politicians don’t want to answer, will be considered a crime. Committing crimes often result in imprisonment.
I assume what I am writing now will be deemed ‘intimidatory content.’ I guess I, and millions of others, will be forced to stop ‘intimidating’ the establishment. Funny really, because if anyone should feel intimidated by this tyrannical legislation it is not the representatives of the state. It’s you.
“This abuse is unacceptable – it goes beyond free speech and free debate, dissuades good people from going into public life, and corrodes the values on which our democracy rests.”
‘Unacceptable to whom?’ Of course people should never threaten anyone with violence, defame, slander or libel others. Again that is why we already have laws to stop people doing it. However, the values underpinning democracy, which actually means government by Trial by Jury, are freedom of speech and expression; the ability to question power without fear of repercussion; the Rule of Law and power of the people over and above the state. The suggestion that the Online Harms White Paper supports any of these values is ludicrous. It smashes democratic principles to pieces.
The Harms In Scope
Now we start getting into the nuts and bolts of what the state considers to be verboten.
“The initial list of online harmful content or activity in scope of the White Paper”
“This list is, by design, neither exhaustive nor fixed. A static list could prevent swift regulatory action to address new forms of online harm, new technologies, content and new online activities.”
Just be aware this is only the initial list. The state can decide to add whatever it likes at anytime in the future.
“Extremist content and activity.”
“Coercive behaviour”
“Intimidation.”
“Disinformation.”
None of these terms are defined. It is all open to interpretation by the state. Extremist content can mean anything the state disagrees with or wishes to be silenced. We have laws to stop incitement so ‘coercive behaviour’ doesn’t mean the common law crime of incitement. It means something else, which the state will determine as and when required.
Stronger Regulation of Personal Data
“A power to require information to be handed over to the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) wherever it is held, including on cloud servers.”
Under the guise of pretending to care about our personal data ‘protections’ the state are giving themselves the legal authority to view absolutely every single piece of personal information you have ever put online. They are not protecting your personal data, they are seizing it.
An International Approach
“The threat posed by harmful and illegal content and activity online is a global one”
Because global problems prompt global reactions requiring global solutions. Note that this unspecified concept of harm is considered just as much of a threat to the state as illegal activity.
Conclusion
We are all prone to exaggeration and over reaction at times. I am no exception. There is a 12 week consultation period and my hope is those who read this will highlight the truly tyrannical nature of the Online Harms White Paper to their MP and implore them vote against it’s passage into law. But honestly, the prospects are not good.
This is a state attacking on democracy. Based upon the Brexit deception, as we move towards a ‘government of unity.‘ The state is becoming a single entity and political choice is being eroded. It is not an over reaction to suspect we are seeing the creation of a genuine dictatorship in the UK. This legislative proposal is dictatorial. There is no other legitimate way of viewing it.
Again I am compelled to stray into prediction, but it needs to be said. What we will witness over the next few weeks will be a never ending stream of MSM articles and news coverage, centrally coordinated, extoling the virtues of this censorship grid. The overwhelming narrative will be that it is all necessary to keep you and your children safe.
The majority of MSM sales copy will tell you that the Online Harms White Paper proposal is vital to combat the scourge of ‘fake news.’ It will try to convince you that, as an independent sovereign human being, you are incapable of telling the difference between fact and fiction. Therefore the state must do it for you.
It is crucial that you cling to and defend a vital human right. You, and everyone else who cares about freedom of speech, are going to have to use every peaceful and lawful means at your disposal, while they still exist, to fight to maintain it. Because the state is intent upon ignoring your rights and is creating dictatorial rule.
As long as you don’t cause legitimate harm, no one, not me, not the MSM and certainly not the state, has any right whatsoever to tell you what to think or to stop you freely expressing your views.
This is your right. You were born with it and the state has no authority whatsoever to take it away from you. Their only power is to refuse to respect it, and that is precisely what the Online Harms White Paper does.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
Are we all being slandered? Are we all being treated as terrorists. Well the state is a thing. A fiction. There must be a human being brining all these claims against us so let them make those claims in a court of law.
Thanks for the comment Doug. I agree about the fictional state however the purpose of this legislation is to censor information without the need to actually take anyone to court (probably because the state knows it would lose). It places the onus for censorship on the providers (SM platforms etc.) and creates a state controlled censorship grid by using private companies. This does not mean they don’t intend to prosecute people who they consider to be spreading what the state determines to be ‘disinformation’ but that legislation is found elsewhere.
The internet is not owned by google Microsoft,face book.its nobody’s
The internet is a publicly owned,community .A public space owned by all of us and
none of us at the same time.The internet is a public space host figures ,warnings
safety awareness programs.cities,towns,villages,has Facebook pages where people
can interact with each other.
All news and media has a website to interact with the public when needed.
even though there are private corporations common space same rules for all
freedom of speech their are different search engines for google china,Europe
Britain thousands of content being removed from /through links its been said at the
request of the government.Who decides what is allowed what is not,what is hate speech
what is bullying,what is good words bad words good ideals bad ideals.Face book banning things flagged declaration of independence as hate speech.Government and social media
spying on us everywhere we go and listening to our conversations.
I couldn’t agree more Greg. Unfortunately, once again, the state is assuming authority it doesn’t have. It is the inevitable consequence of the system we have participated in creating. Unless people come to realise that the state is not benevolent and does not care about either our rights or our freedoms I’m afraid this is just the beginning.
This is extremely worrying. I get all my news from alternative media. Otherwise I would never get to know the truth! Are there any ways of preventing this from happening or will it definitely become law? Would your website be ‘taken down’? If so are there technical ways around it that we need to educate ourselves on? Will the White Paper be disseminated widely enough for strategies to be developed by technical people concerned about freedom of speech? I read something about encrypted DNS. I suppose I am asking you if you feel we will be able to get round the censors?
Thanks Julia
Firstly I’d be wary of getting all your news from the alternative media. There are people with agendas in the ‘alt media’ just as there are in the MSM. Similarly the MSM still provide some good op eds and do report facts, amidst the propaganda. I recommend getting news from a variety of sources then independently checking the evidence. This can be time consuming which is why most people don’t do it. They become reliant upon being ‘told’ what the story is. No matter who the source, pick what really matters and check the evidence yourself, before forming an opinion. A quick rule of thumb ‘souces say’ and ‘according to experts’ are red flags for me. I want to know where the information came from and who the experts are. Who do they represent?
The White Paper consultation period is over. The UK government will now produce legislation, supposedly based upon it, which needs to pass into law via the Commons and the Lords. Though ultimately the Commons can force through legislation if they deem it necessary. Time will tell what the full impact will be, but it doesn’t look good for the alternative media. One of the key aspects is the focus upon ‘all providers,’ which includes web hosts, potentially filtering information prior to publication. This will have an impact upon on all sites, including small blogs like Iain Davis. Whether upload filters will extend beyond social media to web hosts isn’t clear but the potential has definitely been raised by the White Paper.
In any event, the sharing of information, such as those who are currently questioning the seizure of Tankers, may well be considered ‘disinformation’ by the state. So those who rely upon social media to get their message out, such as this blog, will almost certainly find that increasingly difficult. This will increase the demand for viable alternatives but that viability will depend upon the extent and reach of the forthcoming legislation. It could be the complete censorship of the entire Internet or it may result in the further fragmentation of online communities across an increasing number of platforms. However, it is clear, that the sharing of information between online communities is going to be strongly discouraged. They want us to stay in our silos and this legislation is clearly an attempt to make that a reality.
However, alternative technologies, such as IPFS, blockchain based decentralised social media and so on may make policing the planned laws a practical impossibility. Fingers crossed.
Thanks Iain, so what do you think a future Twitter would look like? When you say ‘the sharing of information between online communities is going to be strongly discouraged’ what exactly do you mean by that? No conversations about anything political?
If we look at the Rapid Response Mechanism it is clear that Western States will have a coordinated narrative of global events. The Online Harms legislation is designed to ensure that those narratives are the only ones discussed on social media. Anything that questions those agreed narratives will be deplatformed, removed, accounts banned etc. this is already starting to happen. The recent seizure of the tankers by the Iranians has met with a coordinated response from G7 countries. Iranian outlets, offering a counter narrative, have today been removed from Twitter. Presumably because it is considered ‘disinformation.’ Thereby limiting access to information and controlling the narrative.
Similarly if we consider the hot social media debate about Labour antisemitism claims it is clear that Online Harms legislation is also directed at domestic disinformation. Therefore, increasingly Online Harms legislation will be used to ban people questioning the AS claims or sharing the excellent Al Jazeera documentary ‘the Lobby’, because this will be considered ‘disinformation.’
I suspect this will result in the polarisation of social media. People interested in looking beyond state narratives will be forced onto platforms which circumvent draconian censorship legislation (perhaps decentralised distribution platforms.) Leaving the mainstream to happily share official narratives free from any challenge, protected by the state. That is what I mean disouraging the sharing of information. Questioning official pronouncements will not be tolerated on mainstream social media (& possibly the Internet as a whole.)
I think you use emotive language and are spreading fake news. Firstly, this legislation has been pushed for by people like me, whose daughter was groomed online and went on to take her life after viewing horrific and I mean horrific imagery on social media platforms.
Secondly, there is clear definition of what defines harm in the paper – have you actually read it?
Thirdly, we shouldn’t have freedom of speech where that leads to inciting of harm. e.g. If I use hate speech, or racially abuse someone, that should not be allowed. So even freedom of speech has limits. This law represents that.
We need laws to ensure that dystopian parts of society do not harm the whole. You on the other hand appear to affiliate yourself to the far right side of society that suggests we can all do exactly what we like. Humans, like government are flawed…..and to give complete free for all on the web is irresponsible. This is a balanced piece of legislation that fearmongerers amongst the far right are bound to hate.
If it was your child that died – I can assure you, you would feel very differently.
Sorry to hear about your tragic loss. As clearly stated in the post measures to protect children from online grooming are perfectly reasonable. I take no issue with that and have not challenged any such measures in the article. However we already have laws which provide such protection. Perhaps you could indicate where you think this proposed legislation adds anything of value to those existing laws.
You say you have been among those pushing for this legislation? Are you a member of a pressure group? If so may I ask who?
As I have clearly stated in the post we already have laws addressing incitement and hate speech. You say this proposed law represents the need for such legislation. How? What does it add to existing legislation? Why not resource the police so that they are able to enforce the existing legislation with more rigour? What is the need for this new legislation?
Obviously I have extensively cited the White Paper in the article. In order to do that I read it. You say there is a clear definition of what constitutes harm in the White Paper. Perhaps you could cite what that is and where you think you have identified it? If you are interested in what I think constitutes legitimate harm perhaps you would be interested in this post.
https://iaindavis.com/antisemitism-and-why-we-need-to-talk-about-it-part-1/
What makes you think I affiliate myself with the far right, or any political movement for that matter? Are you suggesting that raising concerns about the erosion of free speech is an issue for the far right? I thought the ‘far right’ believed in the enforcement of a single political ideology. The precise opposite of my argument here.
1. Who defines what dystopian parts of society are? You? The Government? Me?
2. Where have I suggested anywhere in the article that people should be free to do anything they like or cause harm?
3. Where have I suggested a complete free for all on the web?
As I stated earlier I offer you my sincere condolences. As a parent I acknowledge this is my greatest fear. If a child of mine died I have no idea how I would cope with such devastation. However, nowhere in this article have I advocated the sharing of violent, abusive or any content designed to incite criminal acts. I draw your attention to the following:
God forbid, but if I lost my child as a result of something they have experienced online I would strongly argue that laws prohibiting online grooming or the sharing of criminal content be enforced. I absolutely understand why you are passionate about this cause and you have my support. But that is not the main focus of this legislation. It’s focus is upon stopping the sharing of so called disinformation based upon a vague and undefined concept of ‘harm.’ How does someones political opinion cause harm? To whom? Do you believe children are at risk of legitimate harm because people hold different political opinions? Do you think the state has the right to define which political opinions are acceptable (providing they don’t incite criminal acts) and which aren’t?
I ask because that is precisely what this legislation is designed to do. It isn’t designed to add to the existing protection for children and it does not do so in any meaningful way. It is a clear attempt at state censorship intended to silence criticism of the state and inhibit the free and open sharing of information. By dressing this legislation up as an attempt to ‘protect children’ the state are sadly, disgustingly in my view, exploiting people who fear there are no laws in place to protect their children online. There are and I hope you will ask why the state has done so little to enforce them.
Firstly, the current laws do exist but are wholly inadequate. This is often because they look to prosecute the person who posted the harmful media rather than putting an obligation on the host organisation to remove it. In many cases, posts originate abroad and the sheer number of them make it realistically impossible to prosecute. So it is not as simple as just funding the police and using outdated legislation (never designed for internet safety in mind). The whole point of this legislation is to create a ‘duty of care’ for the social media platform and to give them accountability for what they host, which they have a LOT of resources to hand to do.
Lets just post the paper itself shall we?
Our vision is for:
• A free, open and secure internet.
• Freedom of expression online.
• An online environment where companies take effective steps to keep their users safe, and where criminal, terrorist and hostile foreign state activity is not left to contaminate the online space.
• Rules and norms for the internet that discourage harmful behaviour.
• The UK as a thriving digital economy, with a prosperous ecosystem of companies
developing innovation in online safety.
• Citizens who understand the risks of online activity, challenge unacceptable behaviours and know how to access help if they experience harm online, with children receiving extra protection.
• A global coalition of countries all taking coordinated steps to keep their citizens safe online.
• Renewed public confidence and trust in online companies and services.
It clearly allows for ‘freedom of speech’, ‘freedom of expression’. You just don’t believe what it says…..you are entitled to your opinion but writing it as if it is fact. It’s not.
In addition, if you have read the white paper, then you will clearly see the definitions of the areas considered to be harmful.
Finally, rather than relying on outdated and unrealistic legislation that is unenforceable in the vast majority of cases, if you don’t like the legislation, why don’t you come up with an alternative way of dealing with this international problem? Or get involved to help tailor it in a way that allays your fears? This legislation was proposed by various charities and organisations, all of whom are experts in their field and independent of government.
People are very keen to jump on the bandwagon of freedom of speech, without citing viable alternatives or getting involved to help shape policy themselves.
Thank you for your swift and well prepared response.
The legislation was proposed by various charities and NGO’s which you claim are independent? Perhaps you would care to list them and we can explore their alleged independence. In any event charities and NGO’s don’t speak for me. I am not aware of millions of British citizens demanding that the Internet and social media be controlled by state legislation and regulation. Perhaps you could point me towards where they have done so.
Let’s first acknowledge that you are unable to cite a definition of ‘harm’ from the White Paper quite simply because their isn’t one. I am glad you say “let’s post the paper” as I link directly to it in the first 3 words of the article and quote directly from it throughout.
You cite:
A completely meaningless statement unless active measures are taken to maintain a free and open Internet and protect freedom of speech and expression online. This White Paper proposes the exact opposite. As illustrated throughout the article.
Is it legal to incite violence online? Can one sell drugs or arms, how about groom children or encourage any human being to commit an illegal act? Presumably you think it is, as you state the existing laws are inadequate. How so?
What is hostile foreign state activity? who defines it and how? Let’s say people think the official states’s Skripal narrative is puerile claptrap. I know I do. Let’s say I post a meme on Twitter saying so. Is that foreign hostile activity? Of course that is what this legislation is designed to stop. I and millions of other British citizens won’t be able to post information, share articles, freely and openly express our views. It doesn’t matter if you or anyone else disagrees with those opinions. People who do so are merely questioning official state narratives. They aren’t breaking any law or encouraging violence or any other criminal act. If they do then they should be prosecuted. But then, as stated in the White Paper:
…is therefore to be silenced. Criminality has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The fact is this proposed legislation appears to be designed to stop people sharing any information not approved by the state. It ends freedom of speech online. And you’ve just quoted the section that aims to enable it.
Who are the state to decree what contamination of the online space is? Who said it was their space to decide upon?
What arrogance is this? who decides what the Rules and norms are, the state? When a person submitted feedback during the consultation period there wasn’t even a space to allow you to express this view. Total dominion over all communication was just assumed and seized by the state. There has been no public debate. Most people don’t even know what’s coming.
What is this harmful behaviour? Show me the definition.
As I have repeatedly stated anyone with any sense understands that the grooming of children, terrorist propaganda, incitement towards criminal acts, incitement to hatred, violence etc are not only morally wrong but also illegal. No one disputes that.
We might guess that is what the state means by ‘harm’ but further reading makes it clear that isn’t the entirety implied. We also see ‘disinformation,’ ‘hostile foreign state activity’, threats to ‘national security.’ So quite evidently the state’s definition of online ‘harm’ appears to extend way beyond the social norms most of us expect to be observed or even the criminal activity the public do genuinely wish deterred and prosecuted.
You make a good point. Just saying something, as you have quoted here, doesn’t make it a fact. Saying something protects online freedoms doesn’t mean it does. You can wholeheartedly believe the state’s declaration if you like but that suggest to me that you haven’t read the White Paper. Because if you had you would realise that is very far from the case.
Perhaps if we had some working definition of harm we could consider it. But we don’t, because there isn’t one. Defining the areas where harm is said to occur doesn’t define what that harm is. Your point here is sophistry.
Take ‘disinformation’ for example. What is it? When does opinion, evidence, historical precedent, analysis etc. become disinformation? Is it when it is wrong? Is it when errors are found within it. If that were the basis for ‘disinformation’ then presumably every mainstream media organisation in the UK will have their social media accounts closed immediately.
However the White Paper gives us some clues, as you have alluded to.
Questioning the Skripal attacks, vaccine safety, the shooting down of MH17 is considered to be ‘disinformation.’ Based upon these examples it is evident that what this proposed legislation is actually designed to do is allow only the parroting of official state narratives in regard to significant global events or policy.
Quite obviously questioning the state’s version of events or their stated policies (in the area of public health for example) will be verboten. That protects no one’s freedom of expression or freedom of speech. Claims that is does are absurd. It crushes freedom of speech and expression absolutely and is the kind of suggested legislation we might expect from a dictatorship. China perhaps?
You say I’m entitled to my opinion. Though under this proposed legislation I won’t be entitled to express it online. Nor will anyone else who questions official state narratives of events. How would the Hillsborough cover up ever have been exposed if people weren’t even allowed to question the states’ version of what happened?
As I have said you have my condolences for the loss of your child and I absolutely support your wish to see online grooming, bullying and other crimes effectively policed. There are some aspects of the Online Harm White Paper that are worthy of consideration. And I recognise the difficulty in deterring criminals online. Perhaps we do need to rethink how criminal behaviour is identified. But this proposed legislation does little to achieve that aim.
It is clearly intended, despite it’s self contradictory claims of protecting freedom of speech and expression online, to censor the Internet.
What an instructive interaction between you, Iain, and the actor who says they are Carol.
This person gives no corroborating evidence to ‘her’ claim of victimhood. Mounts arguments that you challenge effectively about what’s in the Harms White Paper concerning definitions and it’s possible hidden intent. Then goes silent.
I smell a rat here.
Was this actor part of EXPOSE?
Certainly seems that this could be a possibility.
Using such a story as the hook to start sowing seeds of doubt here is ringing alarm bells in my head. It’s the sort of story that people tend to accept as true because of its gravity. But in this persons case, is it?
I think this actor could be part of a deception.
This is where the internet is opaic to other users and any who tread in this domain should be mindful of at all times.
Thanks (Jonnie?) yes I did find Carol’s comments interesting. I have no idea what her role is, she seemed reluctant to be specific. Fair enough. I make no assumptions about what that could imply and will take her at face value. What choice do I have? I have no evidence to the contrary. However, I remain unconvinced by her argument. Which is the important point I think.
Thanks so much. Really appreciate the translation. Great work.