The United States and 60 other countries, including the U.K., Canada, Australia and EU member states, have signed a sweeping “Declaration for the Future of the Internet” which commits to bolstering “resilience to disinformation and misinformation” and somehow upholding free speech rights while also censoring “harmful” content. Reclaim the Net has more.
The White House framed the declaration as something that supports freedom and privacy by focusing on its commitments to protect human rights, the free flow of information, and privacy. The EU put out similar talking points and claimed that those who signed the declaration support a future internet that’s open, free, global, interoperable, reliable, and secure.
However, the commitments in the declaration are vague and often conflicting. For example, the declaration makes multiple commitments to upholding freedom of expression yet also commits to bolstering “resilience to disinformation and misinformation”. It also contains the seemingly contradictory commitment of ensuring “the right to freedom of expression” is protected when governments and platforms censor content that they deem to be harmful.
Furthermore, many of the governments that signed this declaration are currently pushing sweeping online censorship laws or openly supporting online censorship.
For example, just a few days ago, the Biden administration called for private companies to censor online “misinformation” – the latest of many similar calls. The EU also recently passed its Digital Services Act (DSA) which contains requirements to censor “hate speech” and “misinformation.”
Some government officials, including Canadian Minister of Innovation, Science, and Industry François-Philippe Champagne and UK Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) Secretary of State Nadine Dorries, even mentioned their country’s online censorship laws during the live launch of this Declaration for the Future of the Internet.
The new Orwellian definition of ‘free speech’, which involves censorship of ‘misinformation’ – defined as anything that disagrees with the Government – and ‘hate speech’ – defined as anything not deemed sufficiently woke – is gaining ground. The ‘Conservative’ Party in the U.K. seems blissfully unaware that conservative ideas are precisely what the ‘progressives’ pushing this agenda want to censor, and already are.
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.
“Why on earth should anybody believe the fifth [Tory] manifesto that promises cuts to net migration?”
Does anyone on this site know anyone who does believe it?
Obviously this is really corny but..
‘How do you know a politician is lying?’
Her lips are moving.
(Wind up Mogs)
Well hopefully you’re winding me up about winding me up, because I don’t think I’d last long if I were so hypersensitive in what is undeniably a male-dominated site.
The regulars, not the occasional ones. Strange, don’t you think?
Maybe the mods have the actual figures on account holders but I get the impression there’s a dearth of women commenting on the regular and I’m not sure why..
But that’s a random observation actually. Where are all the female posters?
If you look back at the comments sections from yesterday, how many people are there that you know are male vs who you know are female?
One here sister!
Does it really matter what sex a commenter has?
Perhaps ones race matters too. I have only come across only one commenter who identified as black and it mattered so much to me that I cannot remember who it was.
I can see that it might irritate you to be referred to as a third party as “he”, but in the absence of specific gender identification then that is simply a convenience.
I have always valued your comments as a person, not because I thought you were a man.
For the avoidance of doubt I am an old British man and not a Russian.
Well it shouldn’t matter, and that’s not the point I’m making in my original post. I’m merely making an observation and wondering what the reasons are for the lack of female posters. And it also doesn’t matter about gender when we’re chatting or even having a lively debate about more general topics but as soon as there’s an article even remotely to do with gender then you can guarantee some man makes a derogatory remark about women then everybody else chimes in with their support and that’s when it becomes very apparent to me that this place is hugely over-represented by men compared with women.
As I’ve said before on here, point me to a post by a woman who’s made disparaging remarks about men. It’s always one-sided. So that’s why I’m wondering where the rest of the women are.
That’s also why I liken it to being a barmaid working in a Working Men’s Club in the ’70s/80s and routinely overhearing sexist and disrespectful ‘banter’ about women but having to bite your tongue if you want to keep your job. That’s what this place reminds me of at times. Possibly that’s why there is a dearth of women posters too, because some may well find it off-putting and rather an unwelcoming, hostile environment, so there’s overall less input from females. Just a thought. But whatever the case may be I’ll just carry on only engaging with those who know how to behave respectfully and ignore the ones who’ve demonstrated their obvious hostility and contempt.
I often like posts and read them. Only write if I have something useful to add.
Thank you for the downvotes, ladies.
One here too. Although I don’t go for the
this Venus and Mars divide.
I agree Mogs.
Come on the ladies we need your input.
Just a few days ago, Which (previously known as the Consumers Association) called on all parties to the election to commit to the appointment of a “Minister for Fraud”. I sense that there must be a plentiful supply of suitable-qualified candidates for this challenging new postion. As they say, “You couldn’t make it up.”
As I posted the other day, I am beginning to think that a large portion the rump of voters still saying they are intending to support the Tories are people who have always voted that way because they are middle class white CofE and that’s what people like us do – I wonder if they think about policy at all. Either that or they don’t want to vote Reform because that Farage man is a bit vulgar.
To be fair, that’s an accusation you might also level at Labour or, indeed anywhere that a demos exists.
I have yet to meet anyone who can give me chapter and verse on the manifesto promises of the four, or even two, main contenders on just the headliners: education, immigration, environment, defence, health and civil security, and I’d include myself in that.
Most people are swayed by what they hear, read and see on MSM, or vote ‘tribally’, I think?
Yes a lot of voting is tribal, on both sides.
I have voted for all the main parties, and some others, in my voting life. I don’t look at manifestos much any more, as I tend to judge the two main parties by what they have done in the past. I have read the key points of Reform’s manifesto, and those of the two anti-lockdown parties standing where I live. I certainly feel no need to look at the manifesto of any party that was in Parliament during “covid” as they all supported lockdowns etc, except the DUP who I can’t vote for.
You have to admit it takes a special kind of ability to go on TV and do what Penny Mordaunt and other conservatives do with a completely straight face knowing full well that what they are saying is complete and utter shite. And knowing that we know. And knowing that we know that she knows.
You couldn’t pay me enough to do something like that.
You couldn’t pay me enough and I’d be no good at it.
And that is just what we know about: what else is there?
What other surprises are lurking in the wings?
And I second that.
As we would say of Mordaunt here in the North….
She’s got a brass neck.
I thought she looked stoned. Very strange cheeks and eyes blinking slowly. I think she thinks she is Catherine Deneuve/Michael Heseltine reborn? and that her hair is very important. (Actually I do remember David Owen and the can of hairspray which just goes to show that they are all SOOO vain).
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/is-sunak-deliberately-chucking-the-election-and-if-so-why/
Sometimes I do really, really, really get pissed off with TCW.
Wake T F U.
This article is grim and does Kathy Gyngell no favours.
If the author hasn’t yet worked out that the tory party is being demolished from within he has his eyes shut.
Is it any wonder the country is in such a firkin mess when crap like this gets published?
Talk about pissed off.
What’s up Hux ? Without reading said article yet , Kathy’s headline sums up my train of thought that I’ve had for a while .
Have a read Freddy and let’s have your thoughts.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/a-beginners-guide-to-covid-part-15-the-pfizer-trial/
Part 15 of Paul Weston’s brilliant series on the Scamdemic.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/movies/scores-of-actresses-turn-down-roles-in-play-critical-of-jk-rowling-s-gender-views/ar-BB1oaclN
Ironically, they’ll probably end up with a ‘Trans’ doing it…
Met Office Lies About Record Temperatures – latest leaflet to print at home and deliver to neighbours or forward to politicians, your local vicar, online media and friends online. We have over 200 leaflet ideas on the link on the leaflet.
Nigel Farage and Reform seem to be aiming for the role of opposition Party. Why support those planning to lose?
As opposition, this would allow them to put on a show without the burden of trying to implement their policies or make any significant change all the while enjoying the taxpayer-funded Parliament theme park.
They seem to be doing it just right to me, which is first bury the Conservatives, build a feeling of success and momentum and then see where it goes from there. No doubt if they start approaching Labour in the polls, they will message accordingly. At the moment it seems absolutely logical to go for the first goal with is to overtake and supplant the Conservative Party.
I think they are just being realistic. I support those whose policies most closely resemble my ideals, as long as they don’t cross any red lines – I still think it’s worth voting or spoiling your ballot paper if you cannot stomach any of them. I would vote tactically for a party I wasn’t 100% enthusiastic about if they were not too dreadful, but all of the mainstream parties are dreadful and have been for a long time.
A tactical vote still keeps everything but the colour scheme.
Every vote is tactical, unless somehow a political party exists that is going to do exactly what you think they should do. It’s just a question of degree. Every vote is a compromise. Do you vote for the party you like best, or the one you like best that stands more chance of winning – if there is not much to choose between them, then maybe you vote for the slightly worse one that might get elected – but you will have some red lines on which you won’t compromise. That’s how I see it, anyway.
Based on the assumption that changing the party while all else remains the same will make a difference.
It will make some difference. In recent times, very little.
Like Labour for the last 14 years then…
“Whole counsel of God”
Thanks for this link, Richard. A good address – not just calling on Christians to active opposition, but arguing why, and how, from biblical principles.