Bankers, the British and Bolshevism Go Full Digital

Editor's note: Because the private law merchants and the central bankers are located in the City of London, that's why. Digitalized Bolshevism straight out of the City of London just like Bolshevism came out of the City of London into Russia in 1918. To maintain this Bolshevik (central bankers creation) control it also explains how American elections are controlled out of Britain. This is what Bolshevism does only this time around a high tech digital version. Mostly conservative websites getting slammed while leftist/liberal outlets are free to publish as much hate, shit and vitriol as they want to. And it is so easy to do rather than on the streets. Because in real life on the streets during the Hungarian uprising in 1956 the Bolsheviks were dragged out of their NKVD headquarters and shot dead in the streets.

________  

Source: RT News

The end of free speech: Why is Britain handing huge new powers of censorship to tech giants to control what we write and say?

By Damian Wilson | 3 May, 2021 

The UK broadcast regulator Ofcom is set to start monitoring online content © Reuters 

The UK is turning its broadcast regulator into the Hatefinder General, with a new law compelling social media companies to enforce an authoritarian crackdown on our behaviour that's 'unprecedented in any democracy'. 

As the British nanny state widens its scope with the government's new Online Safety Bill it is a sign that the German concept of wehrhafte Demokratie – or militant democracy – has arrived on our shores, dictating that some of our rights are sacrificed in the interests of order.

Once enshrined in law, the bill will ensure that true, online freedom of speech will follow the dial-up modem and those once omnipotent AOL subscription CDs into the dustbin of internet history. According to the authors of 'You're on Mute", a briefing document from the Free Speech Union (FSU), the government's plans "will restrict online free speech to a degree almost unprecedented in any democracy".

More: Twitter isn't censoring accounts to keep users 'safe', it is using its power to spoon-feed the world establishment narratives

But I have to admit, I'm a bit skeptical how this brand new plan is going to work. So far, it seems that Ofcom, the broadcaster regulator, will be asked to draw up a code of practice setting out the rules which social media companies will be legally obliged to follow. Ofcom will then enforce the rules with fines of up to £18 million or 10% of turnover levied on those who break them.

And what are the rules? Well, taking the guide to what constitutes hate speech as a starting point, it means not saying anything that might spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of disability, ethnicity, social origin, sex, gender, gender reassignment, nationality, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, colour, genetic features, language, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth or age. Phew!

Under the new bill, however, alongside the no-go areas, it will also become an offence to deliberately create and disseminate "false and/or manipulated information that is intended to deceive and mislead audiences, either for the purposes of causing harm, or for political, personal or financial gain".

As well, the yet-to-be-revealed code will also insist that "legal but harmful" activity be blocked. How "harmful" that might be is to be judged upon the psychological impact it might cause. So be careful of those clown pics you're posting on Facebook.

If someone told me these were the rules governing access to the internet in China, I would not bat an eyelid, so authoritarian and freedom-smothering they are even at first glance. But look at them a little closer and, well, they're even scarier.

Ofcom's list of hate speech minefields now includes one of the gender gestapo's favourite areas of victimhood – gender reassignment, apparently putting a cordon around it so it may no longer be debated – and also "political, personal or financial gain".

So how is this ever going to work in the realm of political campaigns, where the whole point is to offer flip-side views diametrically opposed to each other? As the authors of the FSU briefing point out: "No UK Government or Opposition should support proposals which give internet censors, whether this be a state regulator or 'fact-checkers' employed by social media companies, the power to censor the sometimes-offensive free speech which is part of any democracy. Political parties should also note that this will inevitably result in the censorship of their own activists."

More: Facebook on 'dangerous path,' International Federation of Journalists head warns as platform cracks down on RT-affiliated Redfish

While Ofcom will act as Hatefinder General in policing its code of practice, the government is looking to tech giants like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to rise to the challenge and monitor their users for breaches of the new rules.

You may have noticed that these are the very same companies the UK continually fines and rails against over non-payment of taxes. Now they're being asked to step up to a massive new role overseeing the way British people treat each other. Who dreamt up this model and thought it was a good idea?

Digging further, what exactly counts as disinformation or even misinformation under the new codes, which seem specifically drawn up with Covid-19 in mind and the various controversies of its origins, vaccine efficacy and countless hoaxes?

Please go to RT News to read more.

________  



Related:

Giant Killers Tackle GoogleGiant Killers Tackle Google

Who is Boris Johnson to tell us when "social distancing" can be and cannot be scrapped?

COVID-19: Boris Johnson says there is a 'good chance' social distancing can be scrapped next month

The Bolshevik media including CBS' 60 Minutes also engaging in fake news to steer the US left: