Is the golden age of internet freedom of speech coming to an end for nationalists in the UK? A report in Thursday’s Financial Times bodes ill for the future.
It began: “Google has given British security forces special access to the YouTube site allowing them to have content instantly reviewed if it threatens national security.”
The report goes on to say that the “Youtube permissions that Google has given the Home Office include the power to “flag swathes of content ‘at scale’ instead of only picking out individual videos.“
It continues: “They are in part a response to a blitz from UK security authorities to persuade internet service providers, search engines and social media sites to censor more of their content for extremist material even if it does not always break existing laws.“
The report went to say that the UK has already ramped up its powers to strip “extremist” content from the internet and that the Home Office’s Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit has authorised 8,000 “takedowns” of content in the past eight weeks.
The story has been written by the FT’s Security and Defence Editor Sam Jones and seems to have emerged from a cosy chat with the Security and Immigration minister James Brokenshire. The minister told the FT that the government had to do more to deal with material that “may not be illegal but certainly is unsavoury and may not be the sort of material that people may want to see or receive.”
Apparently a code of conduct is being drawn up by the government and service providers will be expected to adhere to it. Brokenshire told the FT that he was keen on options “whereby search engines and social media change their algorithms so that unsavoury content is less likely to appear “or is served up with more balanced material – a highly contentious suggestion that is likely to be met with resistance.”
The FT story was confirmed by Google which gave an interesting quote. “We have a zero tolerance policy on YouTube towards content that incites violence, routinely removing videos that contain hate speech or incitement to commit violent acts“. Given that Google’s own internal rules seem adequate on that front, whom is the new clampdown aimed at?
There is a suggestion at the beginning of the story that all this is to do with Jihadis returning from Syria but there can be no doubt that anti-immigration activists are another, if not the main, target.
It is not as if we don’t know that Google’s own commitment to freedom of speech is shaky. The company said that it already offered free targeted advertising to “anti-extremism charities” to promote their content alongside searches used by those “looking for unsavoury material”.
We have been here before. The government’s much heralded war against online child pornography soon suffered from “mission creep” to the point where any criticism of the Liberal left became the target. Material which deviated from The Narrative was denounced as “Hate Speech”.All of which raises the question of who defines “extremist” and “unsavoury” and how, in a nominal democracy, can this even be discussed without referral to Parliament.
What is striking here is the blithe way the minister can talk about censoring material, not because it is illegal, but because some people will find it “unsavoury”, whatever that means.
In a sane society, or at least one with a first amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech, Brokenshire would have had to resign or at least apologise for these comments.
It goes to show how fragile is the little freedom of speech we have in the UK. But you knew that anyway.
Enlightened Patriot
- Edit
Oh dear, Oh dear. Not surprising news, as expected really, but still very troubling to read. The noose tightens. I just hope some talented people are able to get round this attack on our freedoms by enabling anonymous contact between like-minded activists as some are circumventing NSA world-wide spying by using alternative encrypted internet systems.
Crazy Englishman
- Edit
I today had to register my phone to allow Western Spring and other nationalist sites to be viewed, even though I have been on the same network for months viewing this and other sites without any restrictions. I don’t recall any articles on here that could ever be considered adult only content, I found it interesting though that the B.N.P site wasn’t rated in this way.
I suppose the £1 fee that was charged and once multiplied by all customers becomes very profitable. The only good thing that might come from this is it will open a gap for another media site that is free of the restraints now imposed.
Max Musson
- Edit
It’s reassuring that the ‘man’ regards Western Spring as a bigger threat than the BNP. If anyone has been sitting on the fence, and harbouring doubts about our bona fides, Crazy Englishman’s anecdote here should provide all the confirmation you need to confirm that Western Spring is indeed ‘THE’ premier White nationalist organisation in the UK. So please email me, [email protected] and join our struggle to bring salvation to the British people.
Kradmelder
- Edit
You need to clarify this. In the UK British people includes Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Blacks, Arabs, Somalis etc who hold a british passport, a PC falsification.
Your About Us section says ‘promotes ideas that further the cause of Western Civilisation and Western people around the world.’.
Daniel
- Edit
It’s not anti-immigration activists they’re after. It’s anyone who attempts to resist Jewish Supremacy.
Kradmelder
- Edit
It is to be expected; Facebook and Google are controlled by Jews, opponents of free speech through various organisations taking legal action against anything Jews don’t like.
It is not surprising this happens in the UK as next to Germany, the UK probably has the least free speech in the Western World. Anything said that MAY offend someone is against the law. How many british people have had police at their door for something said on facebook, twitter or other social media? Where else does this happen? What about that woman who said she doesn’t like jewish people and was fined? A comment about the Welsh and sheep could see you fined. Yet it seems politically acceptable for non-whites to speak up about what they don’t like about white people. It is only Whites who have to be careful not to offend and walk on eggshells. This is nothing short of tyranny.
Even to refer to non-whites as non-british is offensive, yet they are not British nor ever will be. Those Pakistani terrorists caught last year were referred to as British in the media. PC nonsense. If I have a child born in China he will not be Chinese. Not ever. And it would not be offensive for Chinese to say we European even after a lifetime or birth in China.
Any avenue for the White man to speak up against this tyranny and removal of his right to express his concerns, when others do not like his concerns, will be shut down and whites have been turned into sheep.
PharmaPhil
- Edit
They may well shoot themselves in the foot over this as these viewpoints won’t go away & it’ll just be more difficult for them to monitor us.
I saw something that said Simon Weisenthal’s lot have developed an app so people can use their phones to photo offensive things on the internet & send it in to them to do something about.
kradmelder
- Edit
Do you have the number of Meneer Wiesenthal? I have some photos that I would like to send him. It will keep him busy for a while :). However, he may not appreciate my efforts
PharmaPhil
- Edit
A clampdown might mean the tipping point has been reached, that too many people are realising what is going on & things will become more draconian as the endgame comes into view & the natives start revolting.
PharmaPhil
- Edit
As happened elsewhere, if people are denied the ability to express themselves & are unfairly penalised for this, then expect violence to manifest itself in some form.
If the internet becomes too corporate then expect a lot of people to dump it & find other ways of communicating.
The less relevant the internet becomes to me, the less I will use it.
The same has happened to newspapers & TV.
PharmaPhil
- Edit
I see also that Mark Zuckerberg is increasingly unhappy about what the US government is doing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26571018
ConnalOakesHolt
- Edit
It appears that the FT article was exaggerating somewhat or perhaps premature.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140314/12024026580/turns-out-uk-government-only-wishes-it-had-special-powers-to-censor-youtube.shtml
Softening us up for the reality via a leak ? Perhaps. Although the internet is a very useful tool and its restriction would create difficulties for us, it may be reassuring to remember that there was life befor the net and there will be without it, should that occur.