Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Labour’s Lucy Powell is at it again, branding X a “toxic and difficult environment” and demanding the government “strengthen regulations” on platforms like Elon Musk’s X. We all know what “strengthen regulations” really means: state censorship. They’re desperate to muzzle the one platform that relentlessly exposes their lies, U-turns,...

triffic_stuff_'s profile picture

J Stewart

32,409 subscribers

27,309 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Lisa Nandy has quit X. Yes, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has decided that, rather than challenge so-called misinformation and disinformation, she would rather vacate the stage. She has dubbed the platform a threat to democracy and free speech. Since when has Lisa Nandy ever been a champion of free speech and democracy? Does she care that more than 30 people a day are arrested for “offensive” social media posts? No. Did she care when Keir Starmer and Steve Reed tried to cancel a string of local elections this year? No. In fact, Nandy is the same Secretary of State who, only last week, announced plans in the House of Commons to force social media platforms to prioritise what the Government deems to be “trustworthy” news sources. What should concern us all is her close relationship with our next Prime Minister, Andy Burnham. Andy is keen to press ahead with what lhis and his ally Love Actually’s Hugh Grant’s planned assault on the free press. If Nandy remains in post, she will be the minister responsible for bringing Britain’s free press under effective state control. The Free Speech Union will be watching closely to see how committed Lisa Nandy really is to protecting free speech. Watch FSU Campaigns Officer Max Thompson below👇
1:34

Lisa Nandy has quit X. Yes, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has decided that, rather than challenge so-called misinformation and disinformation, she would rather vacate the stage. She has dubbed the platform a threat to democracy and free speech. Since when has Lisa Nandy ever been a champion of free speech and democracy? Does she care that more than 30 people a day are arrested for “offensive” social media posts? No. Did she care when Keir Starmer and Steve Reed tried to cancel a string of local elections this year? No. In fact, Nandy is the same Secretary of State who, only last week, announced plans in the House of Commons to force social media platforms to prioritise what the Government deems to be “trustworthy” news sources. What should concern us all is her close relationship with our next Prime Minister, Andy Burnham. Andy is keen to press ahead with what lhis and his ally Love Actually’s Hugh Grant’s planned assault on the free press. If Nandy remains in post, she will be the minister responsible for bringing Britain’s free press under effective state control. The Free Speech Union will be watching closely to see how committed Lisa Nandy really is to protecting free speech. Watch FSU Campaigns Officer Max Thompson below👇

The Free Speech Union

40,514 views • 2 months ago

ELON: FREE SPEECH IS THE FOUNDATION OF A REAL DEMOCRACY Elon lays out a point that shouldn’t be controversial… but somehow it is. He argues that you don’t get a healthy democracy by managing speech, filtering opinions, or deciding which ideas people are “allowed” to hear. Once speech is controlled in the name of safety, the system stops correcting itself and starts lying to itself. Bad ideas aren’t defeated by censorship, they’re defeated by exposure, debate, and reality. Elon’s warning is simple: when speech is suppressed, voting becomes performance art and trust collapses. Free speech isn’t a risk... losing it is. “I think it's very important for there to be an inclusive arena for free speech. It’s important that people have the reality and the perception that they are able to speak freely within the bounds of the law. A good sign is someone you don't like allowed to say something you don't like, and if that is the case then we have free speech. That is a sign of a healthy, functioning, free speech situation.” Source: EM Clips (YouTube)
0:58

ELON: FREE SPEECH IS THE FOUNDATION OF A REAL DEMOCRACY Elon lays out a point that shouldn’t be controversial… but somehow it is. He argues that you don’t get a healthy democracy by managing speech, filtering opinions, or deciding which ideas people are “allowed” to hear. Once speech is controlled in the name of safety, the system stops correcting itself and starts lying to itself. Bad ideas aren’t defeated by censorship, they’re defeated by exposure, debate, and reality. Elon’s warning is simple: when speech is suppressed, voting becomes performance art and trust collapses. Free speech isn’t a risk... losing it is. “I think it's very important for there to be an inclusive arena for free speech. It’s important that people have the reality and the perception that they are able to speak freely within the bounds of the law. A good sign is someone you don't like allowed to say something you don't like, and if that is the case then we have free speech. That is a sign of a healthy, functioning, free speech situation.” Source: EM Clips (YouTube)

Mario Nawfal

37,917 views • 9 months ago

🚨 ELON: “WE DON’T TAKE MONEY TO CENSOR” AND HE’S DARING OTHER PLATFORMS TO SAY THE SAME Elon just made it crystal clear: X won’t be paid to silence speech… not by governments, not by NGOs, and definitely not by “misinformation watchdogs” in fancy think tanks. Call it what you want, idealism, defiance, or just Elon being Elon, but he’s laying down a challenge the rest of Big Tech refuses to touch. Facebook? Partnered with “fact-checkers.” YouTube? Bans content that “questions authorities.” Google? Buries what it doesn’t like. And X? Allows you to speak even if it’s uncomfortable, unpopular, or unapproved. Free speech isn’t about protecting what’s easy to say, it’s about protecting what someone powerful wants deleted. So Elon’s drawing a line in the sand, let’s see who else has the spine to stand on it. “We don’t wanna take money to censor, on the platform. I think that would be wrong. Free speech is the bedrock of democracy… if X is to be the public square of the world, it’s really got to be a free speech platform.” Source: Tesla Owners Silicon Valley, Elon Musk
0:56

🚨 ELON: “WE DON’T TAKE MONEY TO CENSOR” AND HE’S DARING OTHER PLATFORMS TO SAY THE SAME Elon just made it crystal clear: X won’t be paid to silence speech… not by governments, not by NGOs, and definitely not by “misinformation watchdogs” in fancy think tanks. Call it what you want, idealism, defiance, or just Elon being Elon, but he’s laying down a challenge the rest of Big Tech refuses to touch. Facebook? Partnered with “fact-checkers.” YouTube? Bans content that “questions authorities.” Google? Buries what it doesn’t like. And X? Allows you to speak even if it’s uncomfortable, unpopular, or unapproved. Free speech isn’t about protecting what’s easy to say, it’s about protecting what someone powerful wants deleted. So Elon’s drawing a line in the sand, let’s see who else has the spine to stand on it. “We don’t wanna take money to censor, on the platform. I think that would be wrong. Free speech is the bedrock of democracy… if X is to be the public square of the world, it’s really got to be a free speech platform.” Source: Tesla Owners Silicon Valley, Elon Musk

Mario Nawfal

103,524 views • 9 months ago

What is going on with Labour and social media? The Free Speech Union has been discussing internally whether Andy Burnham will be better or worse than Sir Keir Starmer when it comes to free speech. We’ve concluded that he’ll be just as bad — if not worse. Andy Burnham’s team has confirmed that he will push ahead with Starmer’s controversial social media ban for under-16s. We also know that the Technology Secretary, Liz Kendall, is looking into a potential ban on VPNs, which would put the UK in the same league as Iran, Iraq and North Korea. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, led by Burnham ally and constituency neighbour Lisa Nandy, has also published a Green Paper, Watch This Space, which proposes forcing social media companies to prioritise the promotion of what the Government deems to be “trustworthy” news sources — namely content from public service broadcasters such as the BBC. There is no evidence that Andy Burnham would abandon these plans when he enters Downing Street in just 13 days’ time. This is a deeply concerning proposal and an extraordinary interference with freedom of association and free speech on social media — one that the Free Speech Union opposes wholeheartedly. In another full-frontal assault on free speech and our right to engage in open political debate online, Labour’s Deputy Leader and close Burnham ally Lucy Powell wants to impose new legal duties through the Representation of the People Bill that would effectively treat private citizens as broadcasters and censor social media platforms during election periods. This raises serious practical questions. Would individuals be prevented from expressing political views on social media during elections? The Free Speech Union also cannot see how such restrictions could realistically apply only to UK citizens. Surely they would have to extend to overseas users as well? President Trump and JD Vance would almost certainly have something to say about that. This all seems to be part of Labour’s explanation for why it is struggling in the polls. Rather than recognising that people are concerned about issues such as mass uncontrolled migration, higher taxes, unemployment and soaring energy bills, Labour ministers appear to believe that voters are simply being misled by misinformation and disinformation on platforms such as X. Last Thursday, Lisa Nandy flounced off X, citing an increase in abuse and the spread of misinformation and disinformation. If Government ministers — particularly those responsible for the media — are concerned about misinformation, they should remain on the platform and challenge it. Trying to suppress it is not the answer. As Louis Brandeis famously said, “The remedy to harmful speech is more speech, not enforced silence.” Watch Free Speech Union General Secretary Lord Young below 👇
3:53

What is going on with Labour and social media? The Free Speech Union has been discussing internally whether Andy Burnham will be better or worse than Sir Keir Starmer when it comes to free speech. We’ve concluded that he’ll be just as bad — if not worse. Andy Burnham’s team has confirmed that he will push ahead with Starmer’s controversial social media ban for under-16s. We also know that the Technology Secretary, Liz Kendall, is looking into a potential ban on VPNs, which would put the UK in the same league as Iran, Iraq and North Korea. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, led by Burnham ally and constituency neighbour Lisa Nandy, has also published a Green Paper, Watch This Space, which proposes forcing social media companies to prioritise the promotion of what the Government deems to be “trustworthy” news sources — namely content from public service broadcasters such as the BBC. There is no evidence that Andy Burnham would abandon these plans when he enters Downing Street in just 13 days’ time. This is a deeply concerning proposal and an extraordinary interference with freedom of association and free speech on social media — one that the Free Speech Union opposes wholeheartedly. In another full-frontal assault on free speech and our right to engage in open political debate online, Labour’s Deputy Leader and close Burnham ally Lucy Powell wants to impose new legal duties through the Representation of the People Bill that would effectively treat private citizens as broadcasters and censor social media platforms during election periods. This raises serious practical questions. Would individuals be prevented from expressing political views on social media during elections? The Free Speech Union also cannot see how such restrictions could realistically apply only to UK citizens. Surely they would have to extend to overseas users as well? President Trump and JD Vance would almost certainly have something to say about that. This all seems to be part of Labour’s explanation for why it is struggling in the polls. Rather than recognising that people are concerned about issues such as mass uncontrolled migration, higher taxes, unemployment and soaring energy bills, Labour ministers appear to believe that voters are simply being misled by misinformation and disinformation on platforms such as X. Last Thursday, Lisa Nandy flounced off X, citing an increase in abuse and the spread of misinformation and disinformation. If Government ministers — particularly those responsible for the media — are concerned about misinformation, they should remain on the platform and challenge it. Trying to suppress it is not the answer. As Louis Brandeis famously said, “The remedy to harmful speech is more speech, not enforced silence.” Watch Free Speech Union General Secretary Lord Young below 👇

The Free Speech Union

62,181 views • 2 months ago

Instead of engaging in debate to challenge misinformation, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy, flounced off X — and took her department with her. She has now been reappointed by Andy Burnham to an expanded role that includes responsibility for digital policy. Last month, Lisa Nandy unveiled her department’s new green paper, Watch this Space. The proposals in the green paper would require social media platforms to prioritise the promotion of “trustworthy” news sources such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4, while demoting others such as GB News, The Telegraph and The Guardian. Not only is this Orwellian, it is deeply sinister. Why does the Government think it has the right to decide what constitutes a “trustworthy” news source and what we can and cannot see? Watch FSU Campaigns Officer @MaxHThomspon, read the green paper below and let us know your thoughts in the comments. 👇
0:56

Instead of engaging in debate to challenge misinformation, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy, flounced off X — and took her department with her. She has now been reappointed by Andy Burnham to an expanded role that includes responsibility for digital policy. Last month, Lisa Nandy unveiled her department’s new green paper, Watch this Space. The proposals in the green paper would require social media platforms to prioritise the promotion of “trustworthy” news sources such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4, while demoting others such as GB News, The Telegraph and The Guardian. Not only is this Orwellian, it is deeply sinister. Why does the Government think it has the right to decide what constitutes a “trustworthy” news source and what we can and cannot see? Watch FSU Campaigns Officer @MaxHThomspon, read the green paper below and let us know your thoughts in the comments. 👇

The Free Speech Union

18,233 views • 2 months ago

. Elon Musk is now at war with the Anti-Defamation League, a progressive interest group that proclaims it is speaking in the name of Jewish causes. And like a lot of these progressive interest groups, they are interested in removing advertising revenue from sources where they can't control the speech. Musk posted on X saying the ADL has been trying to kill his platform by falsely accusing him of being anti semitic, and that If this continues, he’ll have no choice but to file a defamation suit against, ironically, the Anti Defamation League. Elon Musk happens to be correct about all of that, which is why it's very important that if you're an advertiser and you are looking at platforms to advertise on, you probably should be looking at free speech platforms like X - otherwise X will revert back to type and it's going to do the same kind of crap that Facebook and YouTube have done in censoring material.
2:11

. Elon Musk is now at war with the Anti-Defamation League, a progressive interest group that proclaims it is speaking in the name of Jewish causes. And like a lot of these progressive interest groups, they are interested in removing advertising revenue from sources where they can't control the speech. Musk posted on X saying the ADL has been trying to kill his platform by falsely accusing him of being anti semitic, and that If this continues, he’ll have no choice but to file a defamation suit against, ironically, the Anti Defamation League. Elon Musk happens to be correct about all of that, which is why it's very important that if you're an advertiser and you are looking at platforms to advertise on, you probably should be looking at free speech platforms like X - otherwise X will revert back to type and it's going to do the same kind of crap that Facebook and YouTube have done in censoring material.

Ben Shapiro

4,604,640 views • 3 years ago

Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, And Barack Obama Back Brazil-Style Censorship Next Democratic president and vice president may implement sweeping plan for "fighting misinformation" and "hate speech" Brazil’s banning and blocking of the social media platform X is far more extreme than anything being proposed in the United States, social media regulation experts are telling the New York Times, Washington Post, and other publications. One implication is that we need not be concerned that Brazil-style censorship will ever happen in the US. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and vice presidential candidate Tim Walz both repeatedly endorsed the three main censorship tactics used by the Brazilian government: censorship of election “misinformation,” de-platforming political opponents, and cross-platform bans, which ban a person not just from one social media platform but from many or even all of them. Harris repeatedly called for the US government to deplatform then-President Donald Trump. In an October 2019 debate, Harris said, “His Twitter account should be shut down.” After the debate she said, “You can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply. There has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites…They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.” When Walz in 2022 called for censorship of election misinformation, he claimed, falsely, that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech and misinformation. “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,” said Walz on MSNBC, “and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, or deliberate lying are allowed in most circumstances. First Amendment scholar Jeff Koseff last year published a book, Liar In A Crowded Theater, documenting this history. It’s true that Harris and Walz have not recently repeated their calls for government censorship and that what they called for was not as extreme as what Brazil is doing. They made their statements two to five years ago. And neither Harris nor Walz called for completely banning and blocking social media platforms as the Brazilian government did. But none of that takes away from the severity of their calls for industry-wide, cross-platform deplatforming through government regulation of social media platforms. Before the Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes banned and blocked X in Brazil, he sought cross-platform deplatforming of opposition politicians and independent journalists. Indeed, it was precisely his demands for such cross-platform bans that X owner Elon Musk rejected, which led to Moraes’ decision to block the whole platform. For years, Democrats have sought to regulate social media platforms both directly through the executive branch and through Congress. In 2021 and 2022, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced the “Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act,” “Algorithmic Justice Act,” and the “Social Media NUDGE Act” to require social media companies to censor content that could cause “emotional injury,” ban algorithms that result in “discrimination or similar harms,” and impose “limits on account creation and content sharing” of disfavored individuals and their views. While some of these bills have good goals, including protecting privacy, preventing harassment, and increasing transparency, they all give the government far too much power to censor disfavored speech. In the spring of 2022, the Biden Administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a “Disinformation Governance Board.” One week prior, former President Barack Obama advocated for sweeping US government censorship of social media platforms in a major speech at Stanford University, which appeared timed to support the Disinformation Governance Board and advocate for Congress to regulate social media content for disfavored content. Obama’s speech gave a clear picture of the censorship a Harris-Walz administration may impose. He claimed that “social media platforms tend not to wanna do anything,” and “a regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place” for “slowing the spread of harmful content.” Obama stressed that government “regulation has to be part of the answer.” In his speech, Obama praised the aggressive social censorship that the European Union is currently pursuing through its Digital Services Act (DSA). For decades, the Democrats were the party of free speech in the United States. What changed? How did Harris, Walz, Obama, and dozens of Democratic Senators and members of Congress come to support Brazil-style censorship? Please subscribe now to support Public's investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!
4:56

Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, And Barack Obama Back Brazil-Style Censorship Next Democratic president and vice president may implement sweeping plan for "fighting misinformation" and "hate speech" Brazil’s banning and blocking of the social media platform X is far more extreme than anything being proposed in the United States, social media regulation experts are telling the New York Times, Washington Post, and other publications. One implication is that we need not be concerned that Brazil-style censorship will ever happen in the US. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and vice presidential candidate Tim Walz both repeatedly endorsed the three main censorship tactics used by the Brazilian government: censorship of election “misinformation,” de-platforming political opponents, and cross-platform bans, which ban a person not just from one social media platform but from many or even all of them. Harris repeatedly called for the US government to deplatform then-President Donald Trump. In an October 2019 debate, Harris said, “His Twitter account should be shut down.” After the debate she said, “You can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply. There has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites…They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.” When Walz in 2022 called for censorship of election misinformation, he claimed, falsely, that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech and misinformation. “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,” said Walz on MSNBC, “and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, or deliberate lying are allowed in most circumstances. First Amendment scholar Jeff Koseff last year published a book, Liar In A Crowded Theater, documenting this history. It’s true that Harris and Walz have not recently repeated their calls for government censorship and that what they called for was not as extreme as what Brazil is doing. They made their statements two to five years ago. And neither Harris nor Walz called for completely banning and blocking social media platforms as the Brazilian government did. But none of that takes away from the severity of their calls for industry-wide, cross-platform deplatforming through government regulation of social media platforms. Before the Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes banned and blocked X in Brazil, he sought cross-platform deplatforming of opposition politicians and independent journalists. Indeed, it was precisely his demands for such cross-platform bans that X owner Elon Musk rejected, which led to Moraes’ decision to block the whole platform. For years, Democrats have sought to regulate social media platforms both directly through the executive branch and through Congress. In 2021 and 2022, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced the “Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act,” “Algorithmic Justice Act,” and the “Social Media NUDGE Act” to require social media companies to censor content that could cause “emotional injury,” ban algorithms that result in “discrimination or similar harms,” and impose “limits on account creation and content sharing” of disfavored individuals and their views. While some of these bills have good goals, including protecting privacy, preventing harassment, and increasing transparency, they all give the government far too much power to censor disfavored speech. In the spring of 2022, the Biden Administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a “Disinformation Governance Board.” One week prior, former President Barack Obama advocated for sweeping US government censorship of social media platforms in a major speech at Stanford University, which appeared timed to support the Disinformation Governance Board and advocate for Congress to regulate social media content for disfavored content. Obama’s speech gave a clear picture of the censorship a Harris-Walz administration may impose. He claimed that “social media platforms tend not to wanna do anything,” and “a regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place” for “slowing the spread of harmful content.” Obama stressed that government “regulation has to be part of the answer.” In his speech, Obama praised the aggressive social censorship that the European Union is currently pursuing through its Digital Services Act (DSA). For decades, the Democrats were the party of free speech in the United States. What changed? How did Harris, Walz, Obama, and dozens of Democratic Senators and members of Congress come to support Brazil-style censorship? Please subscribe now to support Public's investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Michael Shellenberger

131,422 views • 2 years ago

🚨 THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING US FOR MUGS ONCE AGAIN. Britain is rapidly becoming the North Korea of the North Sea — and once again, the Government is taking us for mugs. This Government’s weird obsession with “misinformation” — which it is shamelessly weaponising — knows no bounds. Under its new media green paper, the Government plans to place social media platforms under a legal obligation to promote state-approved “trustworthy” news sources, such as the BBC, while demoting more critical outlets like GB News and independent journalists. The US is rightly fed up with the Government’s abject disregard for free speech — both online and offline. Last week, UK officials were hauled into the US Embassy in London and reprimanded over Labour’s pursuit of even greater online censorship. US officials warned that Washington would view this as a form of censorship, and that it could provide a blueprint for future authoritarian governments seeking to clamp down on free speech and freedom of the press. This obsession with so-called “misinformation” is based on sand. The Government claims that social media platforms promote misinformation for profit, basing this assertion on a single academic paper from a low-ranking university in Indonesia, while conveniently ignoring research showing that misinformation is not the massive threat it claims. The Government had a predetermined view of what it wanted the research to show, so it ignored world-leading academics. If Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, is so concerned about the threat of misinformation, why did she flounce off X in a huff rather than stay and challenge it through more debate? Watch FSU Campaigns Officer Max Thompson and read David Rose’s briefing below 👇
2:44

🚨 THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING US FOR MUGS ONCE AGAIN. Britain is rapidly becoming the North Korea of the North Sea — and once again, the Government is taking us for mugs. This Government’s weird obsession with “misinformation” — which it is shamelessly weaponising — knows no bounds. Under its new media green paper, the Government plans to place social media platforms under a legal obligation to promote state-approved “trustworthy” news sources, such as the BBC, while demoting more critical outlets like GB News and independent journalists. The US is rightly fed up with the Government’s abject disregard for free speech — both online and offline. Last week, UK officials were hauled into the US Embassy in London and reprimanded over Labour’s pursuit of even greater online censorship. US officials warned that Washington would view this as a form of censorship, and that it could provide a blueprint for future authoritarian governments seeking to clamp down on free speech and freedom of the press. This obsession with so-called “misinformation” is based on sand. The Government claims that social media platforms promote misinformation for profit, basing this assertion on a single academic paper from a low-ranking university in Indonesia, while conveniently ignoring research showing that misinformation is not the massive threat it claims. The Government had a predetermined view of what it wanted the research to show, so it ignored world-leading academics. If Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, is so concerned about the threat of misinformation, why did she flounce off X in a huff rather than stay and challenge it through more debate? Watch FSU Campaigns Officer Max Thompson and read David Rose’s briefing below 👇

The Free Speech Union

26,845 views • 4 days ago

Krishnan Guru-Murthy mocking Labour's Lisa Nandy for running away from Twitter "If only there was a government minister whose job it was to do something about Twitter/X" Sorry Rupa Huq MP agree with you on a lot of things, but on this, Nandy isn't taking a stand, she's running away like a coward when it's her remit to actually do something about it A point of clarification: Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), headed by the science and technology secretary, focuses on areas such as AI, digital infrastructure, data policy, telecoms and innovation Lisa Nandy, as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, is responsible for policy relating to online safety, media and the digital environment, including oversight of the implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023 through her department So while DSIT has responsibilities for the UK's wider digital and technology agenda, the regulation of social media platforms and online safety sits primarily with DCMS, making it part of Lisa Nandy's ministerial portfolio And that's why she's both incompetent for not addressing this in the two years she's been in the job, and then a coward for running away And the idea that politics on Facebook and Instagram isn't toxic - she'll be in for a shock! - It's just as bad, though on a smaller scale The whole point of government is to make everyone safe in the country, in person and online. two years into a Labour gov, where's the plan?
7:00

Krishnan Guru-Murthy mocking Labour's Lisa Nandy for running away from Twitter "If only there was a government minister whose job it was to do something about Twitter/X" Sorry Rupa Huq MP agree with you on a lot of things, but on this, Nandy isn't taking a stand, she's running away like a coward when it's her remit to actually do something about it A point of clarification: Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), headed by the science and technology secretary, focuses on areas such as AI, digital infrastructure, data policy, telecoms and innovation Lisa Nandy, as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, is responsible for policy relating to online safety, media and the digital environment, including oversight of the implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023 through her department So while DSIT has responsibilities for the UK's wider digital and technology agenda, the regulation of social media platforms and online safety sits primarily with DCMS, making it part of Lisa Nandy's ministerial portfolio And that's why she's both incompetent for not addressing this in the two years she's been in the job, and then a coward for running away And the idea that politics on Facebook and Instagram isn't toxic - she'll be in for a shock! - It's just as bad, though on a smaller scale The whole point of government is to make everyone safe in the country, in person and online. two years into a Labour gov, where's the plan?

Farrukh

59,271 views • 2 months ago

🚨 UN DECLARES WAR ON DIGITAL FREEDOM 🚨 UN Secretary-General António Guterres has just labeled platforms like 𝕏 a “clear and present danger” to the global agenda — and now he’s demanding total control over what you’re allowed to see, say, and share. 🌐 The UN’s new “Code of Conduct for Information Integrity” calls on governments to: 🔹 Enforce censorship 🔹 Follow EU-style speech laws 🔹 Submit to a UN-run “independent observatory” to monitor compliance Let that sink in: 🛑 An unelected global body wants to decide what’s “truth” 🛑 Your own country is expected to enforce it 🛑 Platforms like X, Telegram, and Rumble are now targets They claim it’s about stopping “disinformation.” But we know what that really means: 💥 Opinions they don’t like 💥 Stories they want buried 💥 Speech they can’t control THIS is the globalist censorship regime in the open. No vote. No consent. Just compliance. If we don’t push back now — the truth will be outlawed.
0:34

🚨 UN DECLARES WAR ON DIGITAL FREEDOM 🚨 UN Secretary-General António Guterres has just labeled platforms like 𝕏 a “clear and present danger” to the global agenda — and now he’s demanding total control over what you’re allowed to see, say, and share. 🌐 The UN’s new “Code of Conduct for Information Integrity” calls on governments to: 🔹 Enforce censorship 🔹 Follow EU-style speech laws 🔹 Submit to a UN-run “independent observatory” to monitor compliance Let that sink in: 🛑 An unelected global body wants to decide what’s “truth” 🛑 Your own country is expected to enforce it 🛑 Platforms like X, Telegram, and Rumble are now targets They claim it’s about stopping “disinformation.” But we know what that really means: 💥 Opinions they don’t like 💥 Stories they want buried 💥 Speech they can’t control THIS is the globalist censorship regime in the open. No vote. No consent. Just compliance. If we don’t push back now — the truth will be outlawed.

Jim Ferguson

347,884 views • 1 year ago

🚨 Australia’s eSafety Commissioner attacks X for defending free speech in court, insisting the platform’s true goal is profiting from “horrific content” under the banner of free speech Julie Inman Grant, the former Twitter employee and WEF regular now working as Australia’s online safety regulator, shared multiple points of frustration with Elon Musk’s X platform for protecting free speech through legal challenges to censorship requests. When asked whether platforms like X hide behind free speech arguments to protect news-related content, she implied their only purpose must be to monetise it. Grant, who has not yet appeared before the US Congress for trying to diminish the freedom of Americans, went on to argue that sensible censorship can have a role in protecting democracy. The eSafety Commissioner was giving evidence at the Royal Commission on Antisemitism in Australia.
2:01

🚨 Australia’s eSafety Commissioner attacks X for defending free speech in court, insisting the platform’s true goal is profiting from “horrific content” under the banner of free speech Julie Inman Grant, the former Twitter employee and WEF regular now working as Australia’s online safety regulator, shared multiple points of frustration with Elon Musk’s X platform for protecting free speech through legal challenges to censorship requests. When asked whether platforms like X hide behind free speech arguments to protect news-related content, she implied their only purpose must be to monetise it. Grant, who has not yet appeared before the US Congress for trying to diminish the freedom of Americans, went on to argue that sensible censorship can have a role in protecting democracy. The eSafety Commissioner was giving evidence at the Royal Commission on Antisemitism in Australia.

Rukshan Fernando

22,864 views • 2 months ago

“Because we have internal documents, for one thing, that show exactly what they knew and that they knew it. There’s actually things in these documents that are so egregious—like right now in Europe, the type of agricultural Roundup that we use is banned. But what they say is glyphosate isn’t banned in the EU, and that’s true—but the formulation of Roundup that we use in the United States is banned because it’s so toxic. They know how to make these products safer—we have their internal communications to know that they’re lying to us—but instead of owning up and putting a warning on the label, they’re going after immunity.” Zach Lahn
20:28

“Because we have internal documents, for one thing, that show exactly what they knew and that they knew it. There’s actually things in these documents that are so egregious—like right now in Europe, the type of agricultural Roundup that we use is banned. But what they say is glyphosate isn’t banned in the EU, and that’s true—but the formulation of Roundup that we use in the United States is banned because it’s so toxic. They know how to make these products safer—we have their internal communications to know that they’re lying to us—but instead of owning up and putting a warning on the label, they’re going after immunity.” Zach Lahn

Shawn Ryan

199,556 views • 6 months ago

🇺🇸 CATHERINE HERRIDGE: CBS WALKED AWAY FROM ELON BECAUSE THEY COULDN’T CONTROL HIM Catherine revealed CBS passed on what could have been one of the biggest interviews in modern media, not because Elon refused, but because the network did. She said discussions were underway after her work connected to the Twitter Files, and an opportunity emerged to interview Elon live on his own platform. That’s when everything stalled. “I went to the CBS executives and I said, this is the opportunity that we have. He’s saying, I want to do it live and on my platform. He’s one of the most influential human beings on the planet. And the reaction from the executives was, well, we can’t do it live. And I was like, what do you mean we can’t do it live? They said, we don’t know what he’s going to say. And I’m thinking, isn’t that the point of journalism? They said it has to be taped. We have to be able to edit it. It has to be on our platform. We have to control the platform. Everything just got shut down. It was one of the biggest interviews you could ever have. I felt ashamed. I never went back to Elon to say they want to do it, but only if they can control it. I couldn’t do that to someone whose DNA is free speech.” Source: Catherine Herridge
1:47

🇺🇸 CATHERINE HERRIDGE: CBS WALKED AWAY FROM ELON BECAUSE THEY COULDN’T CONTROL HIM Catherine revealed CBS passed on what could have been one of the biggest interviews in modern media, not because Elon refused, but because the network did. She said discussions were underway after her work connected to the Twitter Files, and an opportunity emerged to interview Elon live on his own platform. That’s when everything stalled. “I went to the CBS executives and I said, this is the opportunity that we have. He’s saying, I want to do it live and on my platform. He’s one of the most influential human beings on the planet. And the reaction from the executives was, well, we can’t do it live. And I was like, what do you mean we can’t do it live? They said, we don’t know what he’s going to say. And I’m thinking, isn’t that the point of journalism? They said it has to be taped. We have to be able to edit it. It has to be on our platform. We have to control the platform. Everything just got shut down. It was one of the biggest interviews you could ever have. I felt ashamed. I never went back to Elon to say they want to do it, but only if they can control it. I couldn’t do that to someone whose DNA is free speech.” Source: Catherine Herridge

Mario Nawfal

2,483,647 views • 9 months ago

Lisa Nandy MP has said she is leaving X because it now favours misinformation over meaningful debate. In contrast, she praises the BBC as one of the "greatest defences against mistrust and misinformation." However, during the pandemic, the BBC wildly exaggerated the risk of Covid, promoted worst-case scenarios, sidelined scientific dissent, and helped create the climate of intense fear that justified lockdowns. And, of course, Prof. Devi Sridhar on BBC Newsround lied directly to the nation's children about Pfizer's experimental Covid vaccine, saying "So far the trials have shown the vaccine is 100% safe for children." What Lisa Nandy really means by "misinformation" is speech that the government disapproves of (which is, more often than not, the truth they don't want you to hear).
0:35

Lisa Nandy MP has said she is leaving X because it now favours misinformation over meaningful debate. In contrast, she praises the BBC as one of the "greatest defences against mistrust and misinformation." However, during the pandemic, the BBC wildly exaggerated the risk of Covid, promoted worst-case scenarios, sidelined scientific dissent, and helped create the climate of intense fear that justified lockdowns. And, of course, Prof. Devi Sridhar on BBC Newsround lied directly to the nation's children about Pfizer's experimental Covid vaccine, saying "So far the trials have shown the vaccine is 100% safe for children." What Lisa Nandy really means by "misinformation" is speech that the government disapproves of (which is, more often than not, the truth they don't want you to hear).

Mike Fairclough

64,044 views • 2 months ago

Speaking at the WEF, the Prime Minister of Spain says he wants to “force all [social media] platforms to link every user account to an European Digital Identity.” He argues this is necessary in order to combat “hate speech” and “misinformation,” an example of which is that “the state is a scam working against the interests of citizens.” He also wants to make sure “social media CEOs are held personally accountable for noncompliance with laws and norms in their platforms” in the form of stiff fines and believes “the tech-billionaires want to overthrow democracy.” We must fight tooth and nail against the global ruling class’s attempt to shut down our right to speak.
17:04

Speaking at the WEF, the Prime Minister of Spain says he wants to “force all [social media] platforms to link every user account to an European Digital Identity.” He argues this is necessary in order to combat “hate speech” and “misinformation,” an example of which is that “the state is a scam working against the interests of citizens.” He also wants to make sure “social media CEOs are held personally accountable for noncompliance with laws and norms in their platforms” in the form of stiff fines and believes “the tech-billionaires want to overthrow democracy.” We must fight tooth and nail against the global ruling class’s attempt to shut down our right to speak.

Laura Powell

133,151 views • 1 year ago

Where do we draw the line when it comes to free speech? From the founding of this country to today’s digital platforms, the standards have changed dramatically—and most people don’t even realize how or why. I break down the evolution of the First Amendment, the role of the Supreme Court of the United States, and how doctrines like incorporation reshaped how speech is applied across the states. We’re now dealing with a landscape where some of the most dangerous rhetoric is protected—while the standards for accountability have become increasingly unclear. I also tackle the real-world consequences: what happens when speech crosses into incitement, when it fuels violence, or when it targets individuals and institutions? And who decides where that line is? Government? Private companies? Society itself? This isn’t about silencing ideas—it’s about understanding the difference between protected speech and destructive rhetoric that can lead to real harm. If we don’t ask these questions—and demand serious answers—we risk losing the ability to have meaningful, responsible debate in a free society. To watch the entire episode: Rumble: YouTube:
7:27

Where do we draw the line when it comes to free speech? From the founding of this country to today’s digital platforms, the standards have changed dramatically—and most people don’t even realize how or why. I break down the evolution of the First Amendment, the role of the Supreme Court of the United States, and how doctrines like incorporation reshaped how speech is applied across the states. We’re now dealing with a landscape where some of the most dangerous rhetoric is protected—while the standards for accountability have become increasingly unclear. I also tackle the real-world consequences: what happens when speech crosses into incitement, when it fuels violence, or when it targets individuals and institutions? And who decides where that line is? Government? Private companies? Society itself? This isn’t about silencing ideas—it’s about understanding the difference between protected speech and destructive rhetoric that can lead to real harm. If we don’t ask these questions—and demand serious answers—we risk losing the ability to have meaningful, responsible debate in a free society. To watch the entire episode: Rumble: YouTube:

Mark R. Levin

24,793 views • 5 months ago

🇪🇺 OPINION: X SURGES PAST EUROPEAN CENSORS AS €120 MILLION FINE BACKFIRES The European Union thought it could rein in X with a €120 million fine, about $130 million, but instead it made the world’s only true free speech platform unstoppable. The penalty, bogusly issued under the Digital Services Act, accused X of misleading blue checkmark sales, poor ad transparency, and blocking researcher access to public data. What was meant as punishment became fuel. People rushed to X for what they can’t find elsewhere: unfiltered conversation and raw, unedited news. It’s what Elon calls the “digital town square,” and the more the EU tried to control speech, the louder that town square became. Within days, X shot to the number one free news app across all 27 EU countries, topping Apple and Google charts from Germany and France to Malta and Luxembourg. It crushed BBC News, Le Monde, and CNN in both downloads and engagement. The backlash turned into a movement. Users flocked to X because it feels real, human, and alive, while legacy media sounds sterilized by bureaucracy. The EU’s heavy hand only exposed its fear of open conversation. X doesn’t just survive censorship, it thrives on it. Every attempt to silence it only spreads the flame of free speech further.
0:53

🇪🇺 OPINION: X SURGES PAST EUROPEAN CENSORS AS €120 MILLION FINE BACKFIRES The European Union thought it could rein in X with a €120 million fine, about $130 million, but instead it made the world’s only true free speech platform unstoppable. The penalty, bogusly issued under the Digital Services Act, accused X of misleading blue checkmark sales, poor ad transparency, and blocking researcher access to public data. What was meant as punishment became fuel. People rushed to X for what they can’t find elsewhere: unfiltered conversation and raw, unedited news. It’s what Elon calls the “digital town square,” and the more the EU tried to control speech, the louder that town square became. Within days, X shot to the number one free news app across all 27 EU countries, topping Apple and Google charts from Germany and France to Malta and Luxembourg. It crushed BBC News, Le Monde, and CNN in both downloads and engagement. The backlash turned into a movement. Users flocked to X because it feels real, human, and alive, while legacy media sounds sterilized by bureaucracy. The EU’s heavy hand only exposed its fear of open conversation. X doesn’t just survive censorship, it thrives on it. Every attempt to silence it only spreads the flame of free speech further.

Mario Nawfal

5,148,171 views • 9 months ago

ELON: I BOUGHT TWITTER TO BREAK THE MEDIA CARTEL “All of the legacy media and all of the new social media were in lockstep together. They were all parroting the same left-wing talking points and suppressing any dissent, even centrist views. That’s why I felt it was critical to acquire Twitter, now X, to enable that dialogue. It’s a step in the right direction. Once X was willing to break ranks and not censor Republicans, others started moving that way. Facebook and Meta, for example, are now adding community notes based on X’s model instead of relying on far left censorship bureaus. That’s a step in the right direction.” Since Elon’s takeover, X has surged past 500 million users, evolving into the planet’s main battleground for free speech. Don’t forget, as Elon has discussed before: you truly can’t have truth without debate. And debate, well... you can’t have that without freedom. Source: America Elon Musk
1:20

ELON: I BOUGHT TWITTER TO BREAK THE MEDIA CARTEL “All of the legacy media and all of the new social media were in lockstep together. They were all parroting the same left-wing talking points and suppressing any dissent, even centrist views. That’s why I felt it was critical to acquire Twitter, now X, to enable that dialogue. It’s a step in the right direction. Once X was willing to break ranks and not censor Republicans, others started moving that way. Facebook and Meta, for example, are now adding community notes based on X’s model instead of relying on far left censorship bureaus. That’s a step in the right direction.” Since Elon’s takeover, X has surged past 500 million users, evolving into the planet’s main battleground for free speech. Don’t forget, as Elon has discussed before: you truly can’t have truth without debate. And debate, well... you can’t have that without freedom. Source: America Elon Musk

Mario Nawfal

62,116 views • 9 months ago