Since the famous Time magazine cover of 1995, nation states have been struggling to control access to adult and illegal material on the Internet. In recent years, strategies for such control have shifted from the use of traditional policing- largely ineffective in a transnational medium - to the use of take down and especially filtering applied by ISPs enrolled as “privatized censors” by the state. 

The role of the IWF in the UK has become a pivotal case study of how state and private interests have interacted to produce effective but non transparent and non accountable censorship, even in a Western democracy. The IWF's role has recently been significantly questioned after a stand-off with Wikipedia in December 2008. This paper will set the IWF's recent acts in the context of a massive increase in global filtering of Internet content, and suggest the creation of a Speech Impact Assessment process which might inhibit the growth of unchecked censorship.

Published in: 2010 Fourth International Conference on Digital Society

GUS: CENSORSHIP ISN’T NEW….

Galileo was an Italian natural philosopher, astronomer, and mathematician who made fundamental contributions to the sciences of motion, astronomy, and strength of materials and to the development of the scientific method. His formulation of (circular) inertia, the law of falling bodies, and parabolic trajectories marked the beginning of a fundamental change in the study of motion. His insistence that the book of nature was written in the language of mathematics changed natural philosophy from a verbal, qualitative account to a mathematical one in which experimentation became a recognized method for discovering the facts of nature. Finally, his discoveries with the telescope revolutionized astronomy and paved the way for the acceptance of the Copernican heliocentric system, but his advocacy of that system eventually resulted in an Inquisition process against him.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Galileo-Galilei

GUS: This inquisition could be the most infamous act of censorship by the Catholic Church that lasted more than 400 years.

Censorship was not new even then. Most information had been tightly controlled by the authorities — often tightly limiting education — that have done so, even through the awakening of the “Enlightenment”, until today. Controlling powers hate challengers…

So how do we define information? How do we separate it from disinformation and misinformation? Was the Galileo case about scientific information being seen as misinformation or was the Church holding on to its specific disinformation — knowing that Galileo was CORRECT but could not be allowed to challenge what the Church had been preaching for 1200 years, without collapsing the trust of its believers? In the 20th century the Church had to rework its narrative to continue the capture of minds. 

Trust has to be absolute for the trick of belief to be fully efficient. Any doubt in the information can lead to a containment of the narrative becoming like a sieve — full of holes. Challenges arise. Christianity became full of evangelical variants and under the threat of atheism...

This is why most Western countries have banned RT and Sputnik, under the PRETENCE that these outlets supply disinformation and propaganda from RUSSIA. "America is the only source of true news"... But as we have seen recently, the media — the organs spreader of information — have been conflicted by the US presidential elections...

The Western world has been handicapped by its freedom of speech mantra while trying everything to prevent this freedom outside the box of the official narrative.

And in the UK, Freedom of Speech is getting eroded, fast…

———————————

By Mac Slavo

The United Kingdom’s rulers created an online censorship law that has now advanced to the point where small websites are being shut down. The authoritarians who authored the U.K.’s “Online Safety Act” are citing disproportionate liability and risk under the new law when it comes to these smaller web pages.

The new legislative landscape in the country, which is supposed to go into effect in full force in March is already claiming victims, according to a report by Reclaim the Net. The law is not providing any kind of safety for hundreds of small websites, including non-profit forums, that will be forced to shut down because they are unable to comply with the act.  Specifically, the websites are faced with what reports refer to as “disproportionate personal liability.”

The massive global censorship campaign has not slowed down as we inch our way to 2025. Much of it is still done, but it’s become a behind-the-scenes issue as those reporting on it have been more focused on who will rule over the United States for the next four years instead.

The fines for not complying with the U.K.’s new law go up to the equivalent of $25 million U.S. dollars, while the law also introduces new criminal offenses.

Ofcom, who is responsible for enforcing this act, has published dozens of measures that online services are supposed to implement by March 16th, 2025. Some of these measures include naming a person responsible and accountable for making sure a website or an online platform complies with the ruling class’s edicts.

The law is presented as a new way to efficiently tackle illegal content, and in particular, provide new ways to ensure the safety of children online, including by age verification (“age checking”), but many have pointed out it is just another way to censor things that those in charge don’t want others focused on.

Microcosm has already fallen victim to this new law, as it will be unable to comply by monitoring encrypted messages on the site. U.K. press reports have already been declaring this as one of the first examples of the harm this law will cause. The non-profit free hosting service Microcosm and its 300 sites, among them community hubs and forums dedicated to topics like cycling and tech, will all go down in March, unable to live up to the “disproportionately high personal liability.”

https://activistpost.com/2024/12/u-k-s-advanced-censorship-laws-force-small-websites-to-shut-down.html

----------------------

A regulation-heavy year for social looms in 2025

by Hanna Kahlert

The UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, has published guidelines around the Online Safety Act, warning that most social platforms are not adequately meeting standards. Sites that fail to comply can be faced with high fines and potential bans (per The Guardian). 

The context in the UK is heavily informed by the riots that swept the country earlier this year, following the wildfire spread of misinformation online. EU officials also responded to the events at the time, with ire directed most specifically at platforms including Facebook and X. 

The broader context is one geared towards social media regulation, with TikTok’s deadline to divest from ByteDance or be banned from app stores fast approaching in January. The platform is already banned in India, and a ban in the US, however slow-moving, would be a huge blow to the app’s cultural relevance. 

Shifting perspectives on social media’s role 

There is growing discussion and concern around the harmful effects social media platforms can have. Concerns range from individual impacts, like detrimental effects on mental health, all the way through to undermining democracy and sparking riots. Algorithms promote content to those most likely to react to it, with little fact checking in place. As a result, controversial and inflammatory posts can trigger algorithms far more easily than balanced takes. 2024 was one of the biggest election years on record, with more than half of the global population eligible to vote in a major election. This rising awareness of the downsides of our social apps therefore coincides with many new governments with their entire terms ahead of them. This puts them in prime position to take on the confusing, and relatively uncharted, territory of regulating social media companies. 

FEATURED REPORT

MIDiA Research 2024-2031 global social forecastsNew frontiers and strong growth ahead

More than ever, social platforms are the de facto way that consumers interact not only with entertainment but with the internet itself. As internet access expands in emerging markets and social platforms...

The upsides of social platforms are their ability to spread niche, nuanced information quickly – which can undermine controversial or ill-intentioned governments as well. So on both the good side and the bad, it looks like more regulation to come, rather than less. 

Of course, the incoming US president Trump is strongly anti-regulation. But this is unlikely to affect things like the TikTok ban, especially with Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg set to be involved in the incoming government to some extent, both of whom could potentially benefit from the ban. Stronger regulation for social platforms more broadly is, for the same reason, unlikely – but wildly unregulated products, while potentially greenlit in the US, are less likely to be exportable to other markets with higher standards. The looser regulations become for the likes of Meta and X in their domestic markets, the more likely they are to face stricter pushback abroad. American consumers are some of the most valuable in terms of ARPU – but the export of American culture has been part of what has kept it such a valuable bellwether market. A break in the flow of culture, information, and entertainment internationally could have negative effects on the country as a whole. 

Entertainment could be the way out

Most social platforms are already leaning into the entertainment angle, introducing creator subscriptions, and promoting longer-form and lean back video content. Entertainment-focused apps encourage fewer users to create, which makes content easier to moderate. And entertainment platforms face different responsibilities than informative ones: the burden of social responsibility (both morally and legally) faced by the likes of Netflix is different from that of news outlets like the Daily Mail. In theory, anyway. 

Expect to see social platforms leaning into the entertainment angle to avoid regulations closing in, while other traditionally non-social platforms adopt new social features to eat up what social engagement losses they may have as a result. 2024 was the year perspectives shifted from viewing social as a frivolous place for selfies and dance trends to platforms that can incite riots; 2025 will be when comprehensive laws start trying to protect from the latter, while impinging on the former. 

https://www.midiaresearch.com/blog/a-regulation-heavy-year-for-social-for-social-looms-in-2025

-----------------------

MEANWHILE IN AMERICA...:

With Trump’s Return, Combating Corporate News Disinfo Is More Urgent Than Ever
Instead of top-down regulation, we need bottom-up scrutiny of mis- and disinformation based on critical media literacy.
By Peter Handel, TRUTHOUT

Every year, Project Censored publishes its State of the Free Press, which takes the pulse of the media and shares the 25 most important but underreported stories of the past year. In State of the Free Press 2025 (The Censored Press & Seven Stories Press, December 3, 2024, paperback), editors Mickey Huff, Shealeigh Voitl and Andy Lee Roth look back on a year in which significant news stories lost out to coverage of celebrities and nonevents.

This year’s book also includes an in-depth analysis of mis- and disinformation. In this interview, the editors discuss how these terms are deployed for political ends, dispel myths about them, and offer an incisive take on the real dangers of mis- and disinformation. As longtime free speech advocates, they also share strategies for combating mis- and disinformation without compromising free speech. The following transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Peter Handel: Since the first Trump administration, we’ve heard a lot about misinformation and disinformation. How do these two differ? How are they different from or comparable to propaganda?

Shealeigh Voitl: These are terms that should not be used interchangeably. Misinformation often happens accidentally. People hold or share false or mistaken beliefs without ever realizing they’re inaccurate. Like last year, when several X (formerly Twitter) users warned of an earthquake they believed occurred in Dubai, but in fact, it was the demolition of a nearby skyscraper.

By contrast, disinformation is intentional and happens when a person or people spread unsubstantiated information to exert influence. Think of former President Donald Trump’s “Big Lie” of a stolen 2020 election, which galvanized members of his base, cementing their loyalty for the most recent 2024 presidential election.

Disinformation uses these deliberate untruths to influence public opinion, bolster existing power structures, and, ultimately, achieve political goals. Bill Yousman explores these ideas in “Eleven Theses on Disinformation (with Apologies to Karl Marx),” his chapter in State of the Free Press 2025, which describes disinformation as a “subset” of propaganda. Yousman’s argument also emphasizes how easily disinformation disguises itself as trustworthy or credible, making it especially dangerous in a time of rapid digital communication.

How does the corporate ownership of most U.S. establishment media contribute to this problem? Are there recent examples of this? And how do you think it needs to change?

Andy Lee Roth: Corporate news is filtered news. It not only reflects corporate interests but also serves the political agendas of those in positions of power.

Recall, for example, the firestorm The New York Times ignited on December 31, 2023, when it published “Screams Without Words,” which allegedly documented the mass rape of Israeli women by Hamas on October 7, 2023.

On publication of the Times’s report, independent journalists raised serious questions about the credibility of the article’s key sources and the troubling fact that one of the story’s authors was a former Israeli intelligence official with no background in journalism.

In addition to independent journalists, media scholars also sought to hold the Times accountable for its flawed report. In April 2024, some 200 professors of journalism and media scholars from across the U.S. sent an open letter to the publisher, expressing concern about the story’s integrity and the editorial judgment that led to its publication. Their letter noted that the impact of the newspaper’s report was “impossible to fathom” because it “fueled the fire at a pivotal moment” when there was an opportunity to contain the situation in Gaza before it devolved into what the International Court of Justice has deemed the “plausible” realm of genocide.

In May 2024, the Pulitzer Prize Board awarded its prize for international reporting to The New York Times for its “wide-ranging and revelatory coverage of Hamas’ lethal attack on southern Israel on October 7.” Although the award did notspecifically cite “Screams Without Words,” how could the Pulitzer jury have ignored the unanswered questions and deep doubts raised by the newspaper’s problematic story and its subsequent lack of transparency about the editorial decisions that led to its publication?

This is just one recent, extraordinarily catastrophic example of how corporate news media disseminate disinformation. As Yousman notes in his chapter from State of the Free Press 2025, the Times’s “history of misleading and deceitful reporting” dates back to its coverage of the Russian Revolution and includes slanted coverage of a host of U.S. military interventions. We all remember how the Times notoriously promoted the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and its allies through its now-discredited reporting on Iraq’s possession of “weapons of mass destruction.”

Many in the corporate media claimed that Russia was behind major mis- and disinformation campaigns that helped secure Trump’s first win. What do you think of this? 

Mickey Huff: Since the 2016 election, many corporate media outlets have contributed to heightened public concerns around the specter of Russian meddling in presidential elections that favored Trump. As we have noted in several of our publications, while there was evidence of Russian meddling, the degree and effectiveness of those efforts were exaggerated, some manufactured, and in many cases have been outright debunked, including by Harvard media scholar Yochai Benkler and investigative journalists like Jeff Gerth, among many others. That hasn’t stopped outlets like MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, and other legacy media from turning Russiagate into a cottage industry.

This fixation on Russia serves to distract attention from the corporate media’s widespread, dismal reporting on a variety of key issues. The U.S. has more than its share of problems with hyper-partisanship, sensational infotainment, Team Red/Team Blue propaganda, and its own false news to further political and cultural divides. These issues with the media leave the U.S. public in the dark about the most pressing matters of the day, including a worsening climate crisis, the collapse of the working and middle classes, unattainable and expensive health care, and the nation’s continued funding and support of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, which a majority of the U.S. public opposed even earlier this year.

If we are going to be concerned about Russia, it should be in the context of its war in Ukraine, where ongoing U.S. military support and financing is poking the bear, pushing the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight than ever before.

It is not uncommon now to hear some commentators — even liberal ones, who have traditionally championed free speech — call for government or corporate regulations to combat mis- and disinformation. Project Censored has always been an outspoken opponent of free speech limitation by either the public or private sectors. How do you think the problem should be addressed? 

Lee Roth: If we outsource regulation of information to corporate entities or government agencies, then who fact-checks the fact-checkers? As Project Censored has previously noted, corporate news outlets that promote top-down regulation of speech and information tend to sidestep this basic question.

Does it make sense, for example, to authorize NewsGuard to decide what counts as trustworthy or not when we know that its founding advisory board was a who’s who of former Homeland Security, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and North Atlantic Treaty Organization officials, not to mention representatives from telecommunication giants such as AT&T?

Instead of top-down regulation, we need bottom-up scrutiny of misinformation and disinformation based on critical media literacy and the principles of ethical journalism. Critical media literacy is for everyone, which is why Project Censored provides a wide range of resources — from trustworthy independent news sources and classroom guides for educators to infographics and short-form videos — that people can use to develop their media literacy skills.

Some citizens may be tempted to approve of free speech regulations given that they come with the promise of routing out dangerous mis- and disinformation. Even if they recognize the value of free speech, they may see this as a necessary, if uncomfortable, compromise. What are some concerns about this stance that you would urge them to consider?

Huff: Some of these concerns have been noted in previous responses here, especially regarding false and misleading reporting from major outlets that not only escaped real scrutiny but garnered awards. On the other hand, many independent media outlets have been subject to varying degrees of admonishment and censorship (e.g., deplatforming, demonetization, shadow-banning) for accurately reporting on similar matters. In terms of public concern regarding mis- and disinformation, there is a double standard when so-called mainstream outlets get a pass or are assumed to be authoritative (e.g., “the paper of record”) while independent ones are automatically deemed suspect.

It’s like we’re living in some kind of bizarro upside-down world, which in some ways exemplifies the problematic “post-truth” world we seem to inhabit since the 2016 election. It should be noted that the 2016 Oxford Dictionary “Word of the Year” was “post-truth.” As Trump returns to the White House, the “Word of the Year” for 2024 is “brain rot.” It seems like a pattern is emerging, with social and corporate media playing a significant role in creating more “low-information voters.”

Again, Yousman’s chapter in our latest book addresses the many challenges of balancing free speech and free press rights while managing the increasing flow of mis- and disinformation, especially online. As Lee Roth noted, efforts to regulate and curate such content is a very slippery slope, whether by government or by proxy via corporate entities, especially in Big Tech. Support for such censorious measures, even if seemingly well-intentioned, creates a hierarchy of information often buttressed by confirmation bias and status quo conditioning. What we need is more critical thinking and critical media literacy education, so we can help teach the public how to think, not what to think, spurring more meaningful civic engagement.

Among more recent attacks on free expression and press freedoms done in the name of combating alleged misinformation, House Resolution 9495 passed the House (with 15 Democrats supporting) and would give the Treasury secretary unilateral power to remove by decree the 501(c)(3) status of any nonprofit for “supporting terrorism.” The nonprofits already targeted by this bill include mostly organizations that oppose the genocide in Gaza and are human rights advocates for Palestinians, but it will impact other left-leaning nonprofits as well under the incoming Trump administration. Should the bill pass, even if nonprofit status isn’t revoked, the looming threat would be an ever-present chilling effect. Such censorship is beyond problematic and it must be resisted at every turn.

What is one specific thing anyone can do to make themselves more news literate and less vulnerable to mis- and disinformation?

Lee Roth: You can learn a lot by looking at the sources cited by journalists in their reporting. For any given story, focus on who’s treated as an authorized source by the news outlet. In other words, who is quoted in print articles, and who gets to speak when a TV story includes sound bites? Do those sources reflect a diversity of perspectives on the topic, or have some relevant viewpoints been marginalized or blockaded? Do those sources provide critical leverage on the topic, or are they all saying the same thing?

Establishment news outlets tend to rely on official sources, whether they’re government or corporate officials. Even when news outlets seek to fulfill their heralded role as watchdogs by alerting the public to abuses of power, reporting based on official sources and conventional narratives tends to reinforce the status quo.

As we at Project Censored often note, narrow definitions of who counts as “newsworthy” often reflect a fundamental assumption that “news” is primarily about what people in power do and say. That definition promotes the subtle but nasty misconception that most of the public is irrelevant or inconsequential when it comes to addressing important political issues.

Many of the independent news stories highlighted by Project Censored tell a different kind of story, focused on how ordinary people, acting together, empower themselves to confront systemic injustices and abuses of power. For example, this edition of State of the Free Press features reporting on Indigenous activists in Panama shutting down a notorious copper mine that threatened local water supplies and forests; and on activists in New York, Colorado and California who publicly protested outside the offices of insurance companies that still support fossil fuel projects for those companies’ role in the climate crisis.

Reporting like that not only informs the public, it can also inspire people to organize and take action on comparable issues affecting their own communities.

https://truthout.org/articles/with-trumps-return-combating-corporate-news-disinfo-is-more-urgent-than-ever/

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

HYPOCRISY ISN’T ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SINS.

HENCE ITS POPULARITY IN THE ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS…