Britain has launched a crackdown on “hyper-masculine” social media after digital watchdog Ofcom urged technology giants to go “above and beyond” the Online Safety Act in taking action against “misogyny influencers”. The Telegraph has the story.
The technology regulator has proposed new measures aimed at tackling online abuse of women and girls, urging social media sites to go “above and beyond” the legal duties required under the Online Safety Act when tackling sexist speech.
Ofcom warned that “misogynistic influencers” were being “rewarded” with “greater reach, particularly to boys and young men” by tech giants’ algorithms.
It said these influencers attracted young men and boys by showing off their status and wealth or by giving out mental health or relationship advice.
At the same time, they use their position to “glorify, justify and create tolerance for sexual violence”.
The regulator said: “Misogynistic speech is often not illegal, but, at scale, it can normalise harmful beliefs in men and boys and impact women and girls’ experience both online and offline.” …
In guidance to technology companies, Ofcom called on them to take action against “misogynistic influencers” and tackle targeted “pile-ons” and harassment against women, in addition to blocking illegal behaviour under the Online Safety Act, such as “cyberflashing” and digital stalking.
Melanie Dawes, the Ofcom Chief Executive, warned technology companies were “failing to act” on the “very real online risks that women and girls face today”.
The regulator has launched a consultation into its suggestions for how tech giants should tackle harm against women online. Ms Dawes called on companies to “set a new and ambitious standard for women and girls’ online safety”. …
Elon Musk has pushed back against Britain’s attempts to regulate social media more broadly. He has been at the forefront of a backlash in Silicon Valley against European online safety rules.
Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook founder, has accused Europe of “institutionalising censorship” to attack American tech giants. The Meta billionaire has also called for more “masculine energy” within companies and a rolling back of diversity programmes.
In January, he ordered a rewrite of the technology giant’s moderation rules, including scrubbing policies which banned users from describing women as a man’s “property”.
Ofcom has suggested introducing “nudges” to warn users against posting or sharing misogynistic posts or demonetising misogynistic accounts. It also called on companies to deploy technology that can detect and automatically block revenge pornography. The draft guidance on stopping online abuse of women will be finalised later this year.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
They’ve already forgotten the Vance speech.
Or they very much have it in mind.
Why would they care about it? Chances are the Vance was mostly doing a show for the audience at home, anyway, and he has no direct influence on politics in European states.
The chairman of the conference seemed to care. He broke down crying over it.
I don’t think he’s working for Ofcom.
True. And you’re probably right. The bureaucrats that govern us probably don’t care that a very senior figure of the US government is warning them that if they continue to trample on free speech rights the US may not want to continue giving Britain the military protection it has enjoyed for 80 years. But they should. If they had the best interests of the British population in mind rather than their own power and ideological priorities, they would.
The USA isn’t giving Britain any military protection and it wouldn’t need any. This would be more of an argument for Germany except that it also isn’t because the USA (alongside England and France) has been instrumental in ensuring that Germany couldn’t ever defend itself against ‘great powers’ like Greece, let alone Russia, meaning, this is more something like a protection racket.
The European leaders which are ideologically allied with the US democrats certainly count on being able to sit out Trump without doing anything which would upset their American masters (like, say, letting the pro-Russian AfD ever rule anything).
So the 13 US military bases in the UK are what then exactly?
If I understand what you are saying correctly, they are an occupying force?
What are they protecting Britain from, considering that territory of British allies stretches about 1,300 miles eastward of London?
Ask the British government and the thousands of US troops stationed in the UK. They’re obviously there for some reason.
I was asking you to substantiate an opinion statement you made, namely, that the USA would offer military protection to Britain which would enjoy it. You referred to the remnants of the 8th airforce originally established to murder German civilians and grind historical and residental buildings in German cities to dust. Presently, USAFE has two squadrons of F15E and two of F35-II aircraft in the UK. These have been employed for offensive operations against Lybia, Iraq, Serbia and Afghanistan in the post-WWII-past.
What kind of protection does this offer to the UK?
The whimpy little tw@t! He ought to grow a pair!
Putin must be in hysterics
Why would they care about it? Because he’s said the quiet part out loud, namely that Europe is being run by an elitist cabal that are implementing policy without the knowledge or consent of the people. The US government said that. They can no longer shake it off as a ‘conspiracy theory’, so what they’re doing instead is circling the waggons. And they’ve put the US on the outside of those waggons and us on the inside. It’s imperative to them now that we are distracted and divided by something, and that divisive something is either support for an end to the war (anti-cabal) or support for the continuation of it (pro-cabal). Unfortunately, their latest divide, conquer and forget seems to be working like a charm.
Is it too far fetched that the US would sanction the EU over free speech crackdowns, anything could happen.
More like they’ve gone out of their way to forget it. I was watching that Turkish channel TRT World the other day and they were talking about that speech by Vance….He skirted around the issue, not mentioning the creeping totalitarianism; a masterclass in Strawman.
I’m not a fan of censorship nor am I a fan of misogynists. It’s not sexy and it’s nothing we don’t already know but, ”Treat others how you wish to be treated” applies here, and respect is not a one-way street. Real men do not degrade and demean women, period;
”Real Strength is Respect
Manipulating and abusing women isn’t impressive. Sleeping around, leading women on, or using them for financial gain isn’t something to brag about, it’s a sign of weakness, not power.
As a man, you are naturally stronger in many ways. That strength should be used to protect, uplift, and respect, not to control, deceive, or degrade.
True masculinity isn’t about dominance. It’s about integrity, accountability, and honoring others.
Be the man who leads with respect, not manipulation.
That’s the real flex.”
https://x.com/realpeteyb123/status/1894049468963537014
https://x.com/VanessaUlyssea/status/1894052035772731480
Good fathers lead to good men.
Truth. The guy who wrote that above post, Pete, has three young daughters, they’re triplets. Andrew Tate shared a close-up of one of his little girls and called her out as being ”ugly”. You should have seen the roasting and the pile-on he received from other men on Twitter. The teenage, fatherless boys might be his target audience but Tate is threatened by real men because they aren’t naive, they see through his BS and they’re everything he is not. Once a toxic narcissist, always a toxic narcissist. It was a truly beautiful sight to behold.
Yes – it’s something we already know, and yet (according to the Chief Whip’s book) our MPs will still pick up prostitutes outside the Carlton Club, and will continue to do so despite Ofcom “putting a hedge around the law.” And other groups – celebrities, bohemians, favoured minorities – will ignore the censorship and misbehave underground.
There’s morality, and there are legal limits, and they are different things: you can enforce legal limits, but you can’t enforce morality, or God would have done so millennia ago. the powers in our society are attempting to control morality, and inevitably the result will be tyranny, not least because the powerful are not especially moral.
Hear, hear.
Agreed. Women are much stronger than men in many ways. My Grandmother could never understand feminism as she always believed women had the upper hand anyway. Physical strength is handy but should never be misused especially against those physically weaker than you.
Read some 30 years ago – “Manhood” by Steve Biddulph…
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/661283.Manhood
“…Biddulph is not afraid to criticise the modern conception of masculinity, to explore the gaps left by the feminist movement, to make risky assertions such as saying that children need adult role models of both sexes to have the best chances in life.”
If it’s not illegal, then, the state has no business messing with it. It’s that simple. What conforms to applicable laws must not be sanctioned nevertheless and especially, it must not be sanctioned informally and without an option of redress for the targets by political employees of state regulators putting pressure on internet companies to go “beyond the law.” If something goes “beyond the law”, it’s – by definition – illegal. That’s what the people hiding behind the acronym Ofcom really want: Social media companies violating the legal right of their users.
Personally, I believe the very existence of something named Ofcom is harmful to woman and girls because the name is really an evil incantation. I don’t have any proof for that and it’s actually impossible to prove it all, but neither do the Ofcom people for their assertions nor can they be proven.
No mention of a crackdown on “hyper-feminine” then?
That’s equally undefinable. Either of both boils down to bad behaviour (from some definition of bad behaviour) towards people because of their sex and the state shouldn’t try to police people’s manners (or lack thereof).
I’m not much of a Football fan, but they make a big thing of the chants at matches, including at female referees. In the past that was par of the course and you would expect abuse if you are seen to not referee properly. They want to police politeness.
They’d like to police breathing and talking as we’ve seen in the not too distant past. Probably going to the loo as well. Some men probably still pee while standing. Can’t have that!
For decades men have been portrayed as incompetent fools on most TV adverts, films etc.
Not to worried about women and girls being made to feel scared and unsafe in their own changing rooms by men pretending to be women then? I’m sure I could guess which women would think to be more harmful to them between influences and trans men their spaces!
They should at least have gone through full transition before entering Ladies toilets, unless invited nudge & wink. After all, they look out of place in the Gents too.
Agreed, Dinger. Let’s focus on where the real threat to women and girls is coming from and should be seen as a priority: the transtifa cult and Islam. Because that’s your true source of misogyny right there. Nobody ever got harmed from words. All this above crap amounts to is yet more censorship. Transparent AF.
Where is everybody? 
Also, seems I’m the lone female voice on here discussing this topic from a woman’s perspective. Some things never change, eh?
Yes, where are all the feminists! Not so long ago, just a hint of males peeping into women’s changing rooms would have them out on the streets with placards demanding government action,
Why, oh why, are they so silent now?
I’ve got the idea that real men are now the only ones standing up for women and womens rights, women seem to be to afraid to stand up for themselves anymore! as if they’re worried they may me cancelled or called racists!
I’ll stick up for all the women in my life, friends and family, till my tongue stiffens!
Hey I wonder if you can be simultaneously a feminist and a misogynist…
Many Leftard women sure as hell seem to have a foot in each camp. Then there’s the “Fight the patriarchy, free the nipple!” lot over in France. Because nothing says “Don’t objectify me” like getting your bangers out in public and writing slogans on them, to be sure everybody gets an eye-full.
Iike CND not really minding nuclear weapons anymore so long as they agree not to rock the boat?
It’s my birthday today so I’ve got to go celebrate, Mogs your a star and I for one will back all women all the way! Bless you
Cheers, Dings.
A belated happy birthday!
Hope you had a good one.
I wholeheartedly agree
Hang on a minute. I am confused.
We have been told that women are just as strong, independent minded and can stand up for themselves. See the feisty, assertive female in the lead role of the latest BBC police drama. Women can stand up for themselves and don’t need patronizing menfolk saving them. And in any case, men are all weak, pathetic losers.
Yet at the same time Ofcom demands special protection for these strong, feisty creatures from men.
Will the crackdown apply equally to all races and religions?
Muslims aren’t misogynistic. It’s just their culture to treat women in a certain way.
:->
The hijab is actually so liberating!
Saves you worrying about having a bad hair day.
Or worring about a bad mugshot!.. or passport photo!?
No. We don’t want to upset community relations.
“ including scrubbing policies which banned users from describing women as a man’s “property”.
We should expect more talk of “man’s property” with all the dinghy diver arrivals!
I would think this is taking OFCOM way beyond its original brief!
“Ofcom’s budget for the 2024/25 financial year is £204.7 million, which is an increase of £17.1 million from the previous year. This increase is due to additional funding for online safety, telecoms security, and an AI advisory service.”
They do some probably useful stuff like regulate the broadcast spectrum, but I doubt that bit costs much.
Afuera!
Regulating the broadcast spectrum is why they were set up and they should be cut back to just that or shut down. DOGE them.
Oh no they will be shutting down all Muzzy output then?!
I failed to mention some things earlier so I’m back, lol….Firstly, what hacks me off ( and I’m not even a man ) is this conflation between ‘masculinity’ and ‘misogyny’. The way they imply that masculinity is somehow toxic is an absolute nonsense. Psychopathy and sociopathy are toxic, and both of these dysfunctional personality traits exist in females too, as does narcissism. And what on earth is ”hyper-masculine”, when it’s at home? Again, a total and utter nonsense.
Secondly, it is remiss of anybody writing about misogyny to fail to mention the fact that women can also be misogynists. I think it’s often these women who are the ‘traitors to their own sex’ that I’ve mentioned on numerous occasions on here, who screw over other women, often as a way of ingratiating themselves to men. They even exist on this site. I recognize many of these behaviours in the below article;
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-mysteries-love/201908/12-ways-spot-female-misogynist
There’s also the obvious examples of misogyny that exist in Islam, and these also ( paradoxically ) apply to both males ( predominantly ) and females, as we can see in the examples of so-called ‘honour killings’, where women are often onboard or complicit in the murder of their own daughters, as this recent case in the U.S illustrates;
”Police bodycam footage shows the aftermath of a mother and father allegedly trying to strangle their teenage daughter in an ‘honor killing’.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14394239/honor-killing-Lacey-Washington-police-bodycam.html
There’s no honour in murdering women for perceived sexual transgressions and people who do certainly don’t have any, either.
Expanding on this a little: In European culture, a woman having an extramarital affair dishonours herself and not her husband and if her husband than murdered her, he had proven himself to be a weakling who can’t control his emotions.
Referring to these deeds of irrational violence as honor killings implies devaluing our culture in favour of those of the killers.
Steyn…
“Merz vs Scholz was so exciting, wasn’t it? A battle for the soul of the nation between Tweedleleft and Tweedleright. But you’ve had your fun, and now it’s over. Half the country voted for the “right”: in East Germany they voted for the “far right”, but in West Germany they’re a little more squeamish so they stuck with the “respectable right” …which is now in coalition talks with the left to ensure that for the umpteenth time you saps are reminded of the essence of post-democratic democracy: no change can be permitted on anything that matters”
Perhaps they should consider the danger to women by men in frocks and those from the religion of peace, but oh no DEI
Will there be a reciprocal crack down on the hyper-feminine too?
“Ofcom warned that “misogynistic influencers” were being “rewarded” with “greater reach, particularly to boys and young men” by tech giants’ algorithms”.
We all know where the real threat to women and girls comes from and it’s not “misogynistic influencers”. It’s from those that do not like our culture and values and refuse in integrate in to our society.
Tech companies should tell Ofcom to take a hike or they’ll get Musked.
Ofcom leading the charge against “protecting” women and girls …..
whilst Two-Tier and Labour allow the predominantly Pakistani Rape Gangs and the taxpayer-funded officials (MPs, Councillors, Police, Social Workers etc) who either turned a blind eye or helped facilitate them to continue unhindered by anything as inconvenient as a Public Inquiry.
Because white working class girls don’t need protection.