Boris Johnson, like Trump, is a phony populist. His political stepping stone to the position of PM was Brexit. He is a British blue blood raised au pair in the bucolic English countryside. Johnson identifies as a “conservative” but holds mandatory liberal social beliefs, including the sacred touchstone, LGBT “rights” (above and beyond the natural rights every human on the planet is born with).
Boris Johnson: "Today, we announce a new programme to purge online harms form the internet and to invest massively in youth clubs." #QueensSpeech
— LBC (@LBC) October 14, 2019
Enacting a statutory duty of care to protect children from online harms must be Boris Johnson’s "utmost priority,” says the NSPCC. Reporting by Charles Hymas for the telegraph. #staysafeonline #privacy #data #nspcc #parentsecure #onlinesafety
— ParentSecure (@SecureParent) October 8, 2019
The political class in the United “Kingdom” is serious about fully eliminating natural rights. The British state plans to squash the right of the British people to speak their minds, an effort headed up by a woman who has not held a real job her entire life.
“Dame” Melanie Dawes is a career “civil servant” so valuable to the state she was awarded the “Honorable” Order of the Bath, a prize lorded over by the “Sovereign,” Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles. She was recently appointed boss at the UK telecoms regulator Ofcom and will preside over the organization’s “Online Harms” legislation designed to strip not only Brits of the right to disagree with the state but billions of people abroad as the law will punish social media giants for allowing the politically and socially incorrect to post online.
The control freaks in Parliament are slavering in anticipation over the effort to make sure Brits—or anyone else on social media—tow the line.
This interim report on the Online Harms white paper is a good start but we need to get to the full response and the draft Bill yet. Government also promised pre-legislative scrutiny last year. Will this still happen? https://t.co/R9U4wDIVm6
— Darren Jones MP (@darrenpjones) February 12, 2020
Mark Zuckerberg and the other social media billionaires realize allowing free speech on their platforms will result in the state stealing their money—or even throwing them in prison—and they will shut down any and all accounts not following Ofcom’s new “rules.”
Oomph. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, et al social media bosses “will be held personally liable for online harms and could be prosecuted if they breach their duty of care” says 🇬🇧 https://t.co/LPARUeAjnp
— Jason Kint (@jason_kint) February 6, 2020
Naturally, this effort to shut down political opposition is masquerading as a noble effort to protect the children.
The BBC, a long-standing propaganda conduit established by “Royal Charter,” reported on Wednesday:
Ofcom will have the power to make tech firms responsible for protecting people from harmful content such as violence, terrorism, cyber-bullying and child abuse—and platforms will need to ensure that content is removed quickly.
Once upon a time, it was the responsibility of parents to shield and protect their children from harmful content, now that responsibility has been taken up by the state and a legion of bureaucrats, “dames,” “sirs,” “baronesses,” “lords,” and associated “honorable” control freaks and sociopaths in the upper echelon of the British government. The connected effort to silence the plebs and commoners is marching under a banner calling for protecting the children (state sociopaths love this meme—only criminals oppose protecting the children).
Julian Knight, chair elect of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee which scrutinises social media companies, called for “a muscular approach” to regulation.
“That means more than a hefty fine—it means having the clout to disrupt the activities of businesses that fail to comply, and ultimately, the threat of a prison sentence for breaking the law,” he said.
In a statement, Facebook said it had “long called” for new regulation, and said it was “looking forward to carrying on the discussion” with the government and wider industry.
Ah, yes, the “muscular approach,” the same approach used to punish Julian Assange for the crime of exposing the murderous character of the USG. He is being tortured and systematically reprogrammed in the UK’s Belmarsh prison.
Other states are in the process of sanitizing the internet, making sure fact-checking the stream of lies and misinformation put out by various ministries of truth will no longer be tolerated.
Germany introduced the NetzDG Law in 2018, which states that social media platforms with more than two million registered German users have to review and remove illegal content within 24 hours of being posted or face fines of up to €50m (£42m).
Australia passed the Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material Act in April 2019, introducing criminal penalties for social media companies, possible jail sentences for tech executives for up to three years and financial penalties worth up to 10% of a company’s global turnover.
China blocks many western tech giants including Twitter, Google and Facebook, and the state monitors Chinese social apps for politically sensitive content.
Indeed, China—the largest and most successful authoritarian state in the world—is the model for not only the end of open and free internet but for the establishment of a police and surveillance state as well. David Rockefeller loved Mao’s approach to controlling the people.
Yesterday the Committee's Chair-elect @GregClarkMP welcomed the Government’s decision to appoint Ofcom to regulate social media companies on online harms – a measure the last Committee recommended as part of it's 2019 Report on the Impact of social media on young people’s health. pic.twitter.com/ltqXDMSDB6
— Science and Technology Committee (@CommonsSTC) February 14, 2020
There is no more serious risk to “young people’s health” than the state itself—its wars, its rigged financial and political structures, and myriad other serious social and environmental issues created and exacerbated by self-serving sociopaths who claim to be “civil servants” rather than self-seeking water carriers for a parasitical and violent state.