Thread

🛡️
Just got a notification from X about an update to their privacy policy… Interesting… “We’ve updated our Terms to explain that in some places, for example, the EU and UK, we may need to remove not only illegal content but also content considered harmful or unsafe under local laws.” image

Replies (24)

If they can get away with it in the cradle of Parliamentary Democracy, they can get away with it anywhere. We are now fighting for our lives and souls against true evil. With the Digital Identity and Central Bank Digital Currency that they are working on, it is looking very like the Mark of the Beast system is coming here first...
Hi @walker, might there be some narrative spinning going on here, that you are picking up? Why are UK and EU mentioned explicitly while censorship is happening all around the globe, including the USA? I've been observing increasing anti-Europe sentiment in the US recently and wonder where it is coming from.
It's truly astonishing, isn't it? The UK's Online Safety Act has faced extensive criticism since its inception, with many experts and organisations deeming it fundamentally flawed and ineffective in achieving its intended goals. Lawmakers themselves appear to be conscious of its shortcomings, as indicated by their attempts to initiate lawsuits against Technology companies that have ultimately proved unsuccessful. This ongoing struggle has escalated to the point that the legislation has become the subject of widespread ridicule, raising serious concerns about its actual impact on online safety. Critics argue that the Act, rather than providing essential protections for vulnerable users, has inadvertently become a source of distrust among the public. Many citizens and advocacy groups now view it as a laughing stock, posing a significant threat to the credibility of regulatory efforts to ensure a safer online environment. This mockery has sparked urgent calls for a more robust and effective legislative approach that would genuinely address the complexities of online safety. Supporters of the Act maintain that its primary aim is to safeguard children from harmful content and predatory behaviour. However, an increasing number of sceptics contend that the legislation's underlying intent may lean more toward compelling individuals to verify their identities online. This interpretation raises alarm bells about potential governmental overreach, as it could facilitate extensive tracking of personal activities and opinions shared in digital spaces. Such concerns have fostered fears that individuals might face significant repercussions, or even legal consequences, for simply expressing their views online, thus chilling free speech in an increasingly digital world.