I couldn’t even remember posting the video MAGA. Anyway, the people at YouTube found it some way after being online for one year. They let me know their deletion of the video 29 April of this year. They wrote “
We wanted to let you know our team reviewed your content, and we think it violates our misinformation policy. We know you may not have realized this was a violation of our policies, so we’re not applying a strike to your channel. However, we have removed the following content from YouTube:
We realize this may be disappointing news, but it’s our job to make sure that YouTube is a safe place for all. If you think we’ve made a mistake, you can appeal this decision – you’ll find more details below.
An Email from YouTube
That video only had six views and had been online for ONE YEAR! Yep, YouTube IS KEEPING US SAFE!
‘The Online Safety Bill, the most far-reaching online censorship law to ever be proposed in the UK, has been presented to Parliament.
UK Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) Secretary of State Nadine Dorries, said her aim with the bill was to “make the internet, in the UK, the safest place in the world for children and vulnerable young people to go online.”
However, as with many bills that are positioned as a way to keep children safe, this Online Safety Bill contains sweeping speech restrictions that will affect all UK internet users.
The bill requires Big Tech companies to take action against “priority legal but harmful” content which will be decided by the government. The DCMS Secretary of State has the power to add more categories of priority legal but harmful content via secondary legislation in the future.
According to the Financial Times, this secondary legislation “requires less scrutiny from MPs [Members of Parliament] than the original bill.”
Companies are also required to report “emerging harms” to the UK’s communications regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom).
Additionally, the Online Safety Bill outlaws sending “knowingly false” communications that are sent “with the intention to cause non-trivial emotional, psychological or physical harm,” requires large social media companies to introduce identity verification tools, gives Ofcom the power to force companies to use “better and more effective” proactive content moderation technology, tasks Big Tech with determining which of its advertisers are pushing scams, mandates that any website hosting pornography put “robust checks in place to ensure that users are 18 years old or over,” and more.
UK citizens who are found guilty of offenses under the Online Safety Bill can be imprisoned or fined.
Not only does the Online Safety Bill contain numerous provisions that can be used to silence UK citizens and punish them for their online speech but powerful “recognised media outlets” are exempt from any regulation in the bill. Some of the outlets that will be getting special carveouts under this bill have even been praised by politicians for pushing for stronger “online safety” laws.
The punishments for companies that fail to censor enough under the Online Safety Bill include having their sites blocked and being hit with multi-billion dollar fines worth up to 10% of their annual turnover. Tech company executives can also be jailed if they fail to cooperate with Ofcom’s information requests.
Despite introducing strong punishments for tech companies that don’t remove enough harmful content, the Online Safety Bill has yet to reveal the categories of legal the harmful content that tech companies will have to target under this bill.
Earlier this week, Dorries said large platforms will be required to remove legal but harmful content “if it is already banned in their own terms and conditions.”
Yet today’s UK government press release for the Online Safety Bill says that the categories of legal but harmful content will be “set by the government and approved by Parliament.” The press release also lists “exposure to self-harm, harassment and eating disorders” as examples of harmful content that online platforms will be required to remove.
The introduction of the Online Safety Bill to Parliament is the first stage of its legislative journey.
Numerous UK rights groups have blasted the Online Safety Bill and warned that it will restrict free speech.
“The Online Safety Bill is set to rip up the rule book as far as traditional British free speech standards are concerned,” Mark Johnson, Legal and Policy Officer at civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, said. “This is a censor’s charter that will give state backing to big tech censorship on a scale that we have never seen before.”
Toby Young, General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, warned that the bill will have a “chilling effect on free speech.”
“We are particularly concerned that the government has said it will force social media platforms to remove ‘legal but harmful’ content, including ‘harassment,’” Young added. “That will enable political activists and interest groups claiming to speak on behalf of disadvantaged groups to silence their opponents by branding any views they disagree with as ‘harassment.’”
Matthew Lesh, Head of Public Policy at the think tank Institute of Economic Affairs said: “The UK threatening tech executives with jail time is eerily similar to how Russia and other authoritarian countries are currently behaving. It is an attack on free speech and entrepreneurialism.”
Before the bill was presented to Parliament, the UK’s main opposition party, the Labour Party, suggested that it would offer little obstruction to the Online Safety Bill and complained that it hadn’t been introduced fast enough.
Last October, Labour Leader Keir Starmer lamented that it has been “three years since the government promised an Online Safety Bill. Starmer also claimed that “the damage caused by harmful content online is worse than ever” and promised to support the bill if its second reading was brought forward to the end of 2021.
More recently, Labour Member of Parliament (MP) and Shadow Culture Secretary Lucy Powell said that Labour supports “the principles of the bill that is finally being published” and claimed that “delay up to this point has come with significant cost.”’https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-online-safety-bill-censorship-parliament/
It really comes as no surprise that ‘Disney+ has censored an episode of The Simpsons in Hong Kong, where the streaming service recently launched. The episode was censored over references to the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Until June last year, Hong Kong operated separately from China. Hong Kongers enjoyed more freedoms than the mainland.
However, since Beijing enforced the national security law in Hong Kong, the censorship laws enforced in China started applying on the island.
On social media, Disney+ subscribers began reporting that an episode in Season 16 had been removed in Hong Kong.
We’ve managed to confirm that the Season 16 episode “Goo Goo Gai Pan” has been removed in Hong Kong.
The episode had two references to the Tiananmen Square massacre. It featured the famous Tank Man Photo and a plaque with the statement “Tien An Men Square: On this site, in 1989, nothing happened.” People often use the statement to mock the government’s attempts to erase the event from history.
In China references to the Tiananmen Square massacre are heavily censored and is called the “Tiananmen Square Incident.”
On June 4, 1989, in an effort to stop a protest by students about corruption in the government and democratic reforms, the Chinese government sent the army to Tiananmen Square with tanks. The exact death toll from the clash between protesters and the army has never been released, although it is speculated to be in the thousands.
‘I have heard from multiple people now that Comcast is sending Unreported Truths emails to spam no matter how many times users mark them otherwise.
And this just came in.
I have also heard that some hospitals are blocking all access to Unreported Truths on their networks. Because science! Sciency-sciency-science! is all about making sure people can’t have access to data that might make them question dogma for themselves.
I still use Twitter BUT also have Parler which I find is definitely conservative and no censoring. Parler is ‘A social media application touted as the free speech alternative to Twitter shot up to the top of Apple’s downloading charts after numerous incidents of censorship over the election.Calling all Americans to take back our constitutional freedoms
Parler officially launched in 2018 and has gained millions of followers since, some of which were banned from Twitter or abandoned the platform over their attempts to censor speech.
KUSI-TV said that the alternative platform was the No. 1 downloaded application on Apple the weekend after the election.
Parler, which is based in Henderson, Nevada, made similar headlines in June when prominent conservatives pushed a campaign to abandon Twitter in favor of the alternative platform.
Many supporters and allies of President Donald Trump excoriated Twitter after the election when the president claimed that he had won the election with large margins, and Twitter slapped his tweets with a warning that his claims were misleading.
The president had said in May that he would consider steps to shut down Twitter over its censorship.
“I think this, if Twitter were not honorable, if you’re gonna have a guy like this be your judge and jury, I think you shut it down as far as I’m concerned,” Trump said at the time, “but I’d have to go through a legal process to do that.
Parler CEO John Matze told KUSI that before the election his platform had risen to more than 4.5 million users. He added that during the election his platform was growing by as much as 50 new users a second.
“It was really kinda going a little crazy,” he said.
While some praised Parler for its closer adherence to a free speech policy, some worried that it might help spread false news.
“I think times have changed now considering how fast information gets spread on the internet. I think censorship is important to keep people safe,” said licensed counselor Angela Pham to WLS-TV.
whatyareckon 