The Government has grown too comfortable with censorship
Starmer’s raft of online ‘safety’ policies stand to make the UK’s internet one of the most controlled in the democratic world
…counter-misinformation powers provide the establishment the perfect premise on which to insulate itself from the forces of dissent. They fit perfectly with the technocratic view that public opinion is a question of information management rather than of democratic freedom. And so, as long as this status quo prevails, no amount of evidence of overreach or abuse will make the Government row back from censorship powers – quite the opposite.
Starmer’s raft of online “safety” policies stand to make the UK’s internet one of the most controlled in the democratic world.
The Telegraph: continue reading
See Related Article Below
Labour’s sinister Ministry of Truth is a step on the road to dictatorship
DAVID KEIGHLEY
THE gauleiters of this deeply inept and sinister Labour government are now pushing for legislation which could become the biggest threat to free speech in this country’s modern history. Their target is the public square. Their weapon is the news feed. Their excuse is ‘trusted news’.
Among the final utterances of failed Prime Minster Sir Keir Starmer is that Labour is considering forcing social media companies and platforms such as YouTube to give greater prominence to ‘public service journalism’. Strip away the velvet language and the meaning is brutal. Private companies are to be ordered to push state-approved broadcasters in front of the public while newspapers, independent journalists, online creators, sceptics and dissenters are shoved down the digital staircase.
In the old world, censorship meant police at the printer’s door and shadowy ‘D’ notices. In the digital world, it adopts the newspeak of safety and is enforced through algorithm. The modern censor does not have to resort to the frenzied book-burning of Fahrenheit 451. He does not need to ban your website. He buries it beneath ‘trusted’ sources. He does not need to criminalise dissent on Net Zero, immigration, Gaza, covid, Brexit or the BBC itself. He ensures the approved version appears first and the dissenter disappears.
That is what is what this wretched Labour government is now heading towards.
Labour says the public must be helped to ‘discover trusted news sources’ and protected from misinformation. Every regime that wants to control speech says the same thing in its own language. Then the machinery is built and the labels are applied. This is the road to savage dictatorship.
The British people did not vote to have their news feeds managed by Labour ministers and their lackeys at Ofcom and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. They did not vote for the BBC to be enthroned as the official guardian of truth, or for a government with no mandate for its full Net Zero extremism to rig the information system against those who challenge it.
That is the real issue. This is not about helping people find reliable journalism. It is about protecting a dangerous, authoritarian government from scrutiny. On Net Zero, the public are being marched towards higher bills, weaker industry, reduced energy security and national impoverishment by politicians who behave as though the argument is over. It is not over. It has barely begun. The costs, assumptions, trade-offs and fantasies of Net Zero should be exposed daily.
Instead Labour wants a Big Brother regime in which the BBC is pushed to the top of the feed. For at least 40 years the BBC has not been a beacon of truth. It has become the leftist house broadcaster of establishment prejudice. It disgracefully substitutes the worldview of its own class for the desire of the nation. Again and again, on the defining issues of our time, it has not reported reality. It has arranged reality.
On Net Zero, the BBC treats a gigantic political and economic project as though it were holy writ. Costs are softened. Dissent is pathologised. Sceptics are framed as cranks or deniers. The destruction of energy security is presented as virtue. De-industrialisation is sold as progress. The public are not invited into an argument: they are inducted into a faith.
On Brexit, the BBC turned the largest democratic instruction in British history into a years-long exercise in institutional grief. The constitutional case for self-government was buried under elite forecasts, business anxieties and Remainer assumptions. The voters had spoken, but the BBC carried on broadcasting as though the grown-ups needed to repair the damage.
On immigration, it has for years filtered public concern through a moral lens designed to make restriction look hard-hearted and liberalisation humane. Numbers, housing, wages, public services, cohesion and national identity are treated not as the legitimate concerns of citizens, but as awkward material to be processed by experts.
On Gaza, the corporation’s record has been grotesquely distorted by questions about framing, sourcing and moral balance. This is the sort of output Labour apparently wants elevated as an antidote to ‘misinformation’.
On the trans debate, the leaked Michael Prescott memo found that the BBC’s LGBT desk had subjected coverage to ‘effective censorship’, with stories departing from a hyper-progressive line seemingly ignored. This is not public service journalism. It is ideological gatekeeping via an enforced telly tax.
Then there is ‘BBC Verify’, the corporation’s self-anointed truth squad. But who verifies the verifiers? A broadcaster whose deepest bias lies in selection, omission, framing, tone and emphasis cannot wash itself clean by inventing a brand with a forensic name.
This is why Orwell is not a cliché here. In 1984, Winston Smith worked in the Ministry of Truth rewriting the past to fit the Party’s present needs. The terror was not only the lie. It was the destruction of independent memory. Citizens were trapped inside an official version of reality.
Modern Britain is not Oceania, but the direction of travel under Labour is unmistakable. The state does not need a Ministry of Truth when it can build one out of platform rules, ‘trusted news’ labels, BBC Verify, compliant regulators, tame institutions and frightened tech companies. Big Brother did not have artificial intelligence, behavioural science, real-time feeds and global platforms. This government does.
That makes it more dangerous, not less.
The BBC’s defenders claim social media is chaotic, vulgar and full of nonsense. So what? Democracy is chaotic. Freedom is chaotic. The public square, such as Speakers’ Corner, has always contained, in addition to truth-tellers with wisdom and common sense, those who are fools, fanatics, bores, cranks, prophets and liars. The answer to bad speech is not state-preferred speech. The answer is more speech, more challenge, more memory, more rivalry, more exposure and more freedom.
Labour’s plan would do the opposite. It would shrink the space for newspapers, independent journalists and online dissent. It would give official broadcasters an artificial advantage. It would let the government pretend to fight misinformation while helping its ideological allies dominate the feed. This is press regulation by stealth and censorship by ranking.
The public would still be ‘free’ to find other views, just as a prisoner is ‘free’ to admire the sky through bars. Dissent would remain legal, but buried. Opposition would remain possible, but harder to hear. That is perhaps how liberty dies in the algorithmic age: not with a bonfire of books, but with a tweak to distribution.
If the BBC wants trust, let it earn it. If BBC Verify wants authority, let it submit to robust public accountability.
A free people do not need state-approved truth rammed into their faces. They do not need ministers and unaccountable, shadowy state employees deciding which voices rise and which sink. Whatever shape-shifting guise this government now adopts, it must keep its sinister hands off the public square.
This article (Labour’s sinister Ministry of Truth is a step on the road to dictatorship) was created and published by Conservative Woman and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author David Keighley
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
The Government’s control over information available to the public is tightening. The rise of censorship and narrative control for our “safety” is one of the most disturbing trends to emerge in modern politics – and unless there is a course correction, it risks becoming a permanent feature of public life.
The Prime Minister is now reportedly planning to “crackdown” on private media companies and promote BBC News, ITV and Channel 4 news content across social media. Hand-picking broadcasters to be artificially boosted for public viewership smacks of manipulation over what the public can read, watch, and ultimately think.
And this is just the latest in an onslaught of online information control plans. Last week, the Government quietly introduced new powers for Ofcom to “crackdown” on social media companies during a crisis. Responding to incidents like disorder outside migrant hotels and the Belfast riots, the powers will force foreign tech companies to police Briton’s speech online even more rigorously than usual.
Companies will also have to open a direct channel to law enforcement, lending weight to concerns that the Government increasingly sees big tech as an extension of the state. Police forces will be invited to direct the companies to censorship action – despite the fact that many recent “crises” in our country arise from the public losing trust in the police, whether in the case of Sarah Everard or Henry Nowak.
Ofcom has admitted that these powers will push platforms to develop a crisis response that “prioritises speech of moderation over accuracy” resulting in “false positives” – that is, lawful speech being wrongly removed. Ofcom accepts that, given the nature of crises, such wrongly censored speech will include “the most highly protected forms of expression” spanning religion, political speech, and journalism and will “adversely impact users’ rights” to free speech – but maintains it is simply better to prioritise safety.
[…]