STANFORD UNIVERSITY, BARACK OBAMA AND A PROXY-CENSORSHIP MODEL

In spring 2022, former President Barack Obama delivered a keynote speech at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, outlining a broad plan for government oversight of social media via the proposed Platform Accountability and Transparency Act. Just six days later, the Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security unveiled its “Disinformation Governance Board,” intended to monitor and shape online information in (frankly) a manner that can be likened to an authoritarian truth ministry.

Central to Obama’s framework was a provision empowering the National Science Foundation to finance ostensibly independent nonprofits tasked with moderating online content. This proxy-censorship model—pioneered by DHS in collaboration with Stanford’s Internet Observatory—had actually already been deployed in 2020 to flag election-related posts and in 2021 to target vaccine-skeptic narratives, sidestepping First Amendment constraints.

Now, president Donald Trump’s 2024 victory markedly curtailed these initiatives; and this is considering that his administration stripped funding from key elements of the Censorship Industrial Complex. In addition, the Platform Accountability Act (which sought to hold the owners of social media platforms accountable for content posted on their platforms) stalled in Congress. And at Twitter (now X), Elon Musk dismissed the bulk of its content-moderation team, broadening permissible speech. Meanwhile, even prior to the election, Stanford donor Frank McCourt withdrew support from the Internet Observatory after investigative reporting by research and free speech advocacy platform Public and Racket News, alongside probes led by House Weaponization Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, revealed its pivotal role in the DHS proxy scheme.

But now, foreign governments, including Europe, the UK, Brazil, Australia, and others are demanding censorship, including of the American people. The risk is that US tech companies will find it significantly less expensive to have a single global censorship regime and just go along with foreign censorship requests. We saw this, for instance, when Facebook complied with the Biden-Harris administration’s demands to censor speech because Facebook needed Biden’s help in dealing with European censorship officials. Similarly, the Brazilian government tried to force Elon Musk to censor the Brazilian people after it froze Starlink’s assets. And so, this is the fundamental issue with this proxy-censorship model—pioneered by the DHS in collaboration with Stanford’s Internet Observatory.

Now, an investigation has revealed that the Stanford Cyber Policy Center—directed by Michael McFaul, the former U.S. Ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration—is central to a secretive and potentially unlawful censorship program that surpasses in scope the one Obama floated in 2022. In particular, on September 24th, the Center convened a closed-door dinner involving its leadership and senior censorship regulators from Europe, the UK, Brazil, California, and Australia. Dubbed “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape,” the event was funded by Frank McCourt—the founder of the Stanford Internet Observatory—via his Project Liberty Institute (or PLI), to which he has committed $500 million to apparently “bolster democracy” and promote “ethical technology.”

Well, the research and free speech advocacy platform Public contacted all 21 attendees and organisers of the closed door dinner dubbed “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape” by email but received responses from only four: being the PLI, the Australian government, the UK government, and the European Union. The EU declined to comment, citing insufficient time (despite a 24-hour window), with a spokesperson stating, (quote) “We would need several days.”

The UK government also responded to state that (quote): “The legal framework gives Ofcom power to enforce the duties in the Act which are related to securing protections for people in the UK; it does not give Ofcom powers to enforce under any other legal regimes…. Ofcom has always engaged with various international forums and networks across all of the sectors we regulate, including online safety, spectrum, telecommunications, post, and broadcast and media. Regulators around the world regularly exchange insights, experience, and best practice.”

I’d like for us to then discuss why Regulators like Ofcom do NOT meet regularly to share what can be thought to be plausible insights, experience, and best practice. In fact, when you look at the Online Safety Act in the UK, you get to understand that these gatherings among regulators are about devising their respective roles in a proxy-censorship model.

THE ONLINE SAFETY ACT IS A TOOL OF A PROXY-CENSORSHIP MODEL

As you’d be aware, the Online Safety Act is legislation in the UK that gives the relevant Secretary of State the power to designate and suppress or record a wide range of online content that is “illegal” or “deemed harmful to children”.

The Act creates a new duty of care for online platforms, requiring them to take action against illegal content, or legal content that could be “harmful” to children where children are likely to access it. Platforms failing this duty would be liable to fines of up to £18 million or 10% of their annual turnover, whichever is higher. It also empowers Ofcom to block access to particular websites. Ideally, the act is also supposed to oblige large social media platforms NOT to remove, and to preserve access to, journalistic or “democratically important” content such as user comments on political parties and issues.

Then, the Act also requires platforms, including end-to-end encrypted messengers, to scan for child pornography, despite warnings from experts that it is not possible to implement such a scanning mechanism without undermining users’ privacy. To which the UK government has claimed that it does not intend to enforce this provision of the Act until it becomes “technically feasible” to do so. And then lastly, the Act also obliges technology platforms to introduce systems that will allow users to better filter out the “harmful” content they do not want to see… So this is a more idealistic presentation of what the Online Safety Act seeks to accomplish, and it is presented this way by the Labour-led UK government, so that anyone who opposes it can be dismissed as a child predator sympathiser and an enemy of progress. BUT, here’s what the Act fundamentally contributes, as far as trying to shift the jurisprudence in the UK is concerned.

The Online Safety Act hands sweeping and incredibly dangerous powers to the relevant secretary of state, allowing them to interfere directly with Ofcom’s operations including the authority to dictate the content of its so-called “codes of practice”. This thus represents a dangerous centralisation of power that compromises Ofcom’s supposed independence and opens the door to government control over online speech. And these powers, which can be exercised with minimal oversight and under vague emergency justifications, indicate a government with aspirations that are ultimately authoritarian and dystopian in nature.

Now, in light of this act and its part in the proxy-censorship complex, I’d like to rehash a crucial point about the UK in particular. The point is this: Beyond the authoritarian and dystopian nature of the Online Safety Act, how the Labour-led government is going about with it, further exposes its big government inclinations. And the difference here is how the labour-led government is responding to the dissent resulting from the Act. More specifically, governments receive their operational mandate from the governed (at least that is how it should be). This means we measure a government’s political legitimacy and efficacy based on how well it enacts what the people demanded, as opposed to imposing its dictates on the people. This is why for instance, the UK government has an explicit obligation to implement Brexit because the majority of the country voted for it through the referendum, irrespective of what an incumbent government may think of Brexit.

HOWEVER, when the people of the UK signed a petition that has received over four hundred thousand signatures (as we speak) to repeal the “Online Safety Act”, the government’s response, in a nutshell, was “We hear you and know you’re upset, but think of the children” (which we’ll get to in a moment). But, this number of petition signatures is important because, in the UK, Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for a debate – and so clearly, many people want to see repeals of the Online Safety Act.

More broadly, this petition was created by Alex Baynham, and the aim of the petition is stated as being based on the belief that the scope of the Online Safety act is far broader and restrictive than is necessary in a free society. And that those signing it think that Parliament should repeal the act and work towards producing proportionate legislation rather than risking clamping down on civil society.

 Well, on the 28th of July, the UK government responded – and they gave a categorically big government response. The government stated that (quote): “It is right that the regulatory regime for in-scope online services takes a proportionate approach, balancing the protection of users from online harm with the ability for low-risk services to operate effectively and provide benefits to users.” (end quote). In other words, the government concedes to the correctness of the mandate that citizens are demanding it fulfil in light of proportionality, and not infringing on freedoms in a free society.

BUT, then immediately after the government states in its response that (quote): “The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.” It continues to say “Proportionality is a core principle of the Act and is in-built into its duties. As regulator for the online safety regime, Ofcom must consider the size and risk level of different types and kinds of services when recommending steps providers can take to comply with requirements. Duties in the Communications Act 2003 require Ofcom to act with proportionality and target action only where it is needed.” In other words, the government concedes that proportionality is important not to infringe on rights in a free society, but insists that the expanded oversight powers through the Online Safety Act are necessary to protect this free society from itself. 

But, this is nothing short of an aggravating and patronising response! If there is no enjoyment of free speech, then there is no free society period! Free speech is quite literally the yardstick, because it is the difference between constructive and open debate on matters of importance, and fearing to speak up. And if society is governed by a fear to speak up, then what they say is likely not a reflection of what they stand for but of what they think is acceptable to the incumbent government. Therefore, it can never be acceptable for a government to claim to protect a society by expanding its powers to govern speech – proportionately or disproportionately. Free speech is an inalienable freedom, that no government has the power to limit or take away because it is God-given… Well, Zia Yusuf says Reform UK (the party led by Nigel Farage) will repeal the Online Safety Act.

MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATIONS CREATED THE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

But, information has also come to the fore regarding the historical and intensive involvement of military and intelligence organisations in the war on free speech! More specifically, a whistleblower last year provided us with a trove of documents proving that US and UK military & Intelligence employees and contractors adapted counter-terrorism tactics developed abroad, including censorship, debanking, and cross-platform bans – really rivalling or exceeding the Twitter Files and Facebook Files in scale and importance. Now, they describe the activities of an “anti-disinformation” group called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League, or CTIL, that officially began as the volunteer project of data scientists and defence and intelligence veterans but whose tactics over time appear to have been absorbed into multiple official projects, including those of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The CTI League documents offer the missing link answers to key questions not addressed in the Twitter Files and Facebook Files. Combined, they offer a comprehensive picture of the birth of the “anti-disinformation” sector, or what we have called the Censorship Industrial Complex. Now, the whistleblower’s documents describe everything from the genesis of modern digital censorship programs to the role of the military and intelligence agencies, partnerships with civil society organisations and commercial media, and the use of sock puppet accounts and other offensive techniques.

But, here’s where it gets even more interesting: the CTIL files reveal that US and UK military contractors developed and used advanced tactics — including demanding that social media platforms change their Terms of Service — to shape public opinion about Covid-19, and that getting content removed was just one strategy used by the Censorship Industrial Complex. The CTI League, which partnered with the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), THEN aimed to implement something called “AMITT,” which stood for “Adversarial Misinformation and Influence Tactics and Techniques.” Kindly have a listen to Michael Shellenberger as he exposes a key figure involved in this operation, and her name is Renee Teresita and even the “partnerships” that were formed to create this censorship industrial complex.

THE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX’S WAR ON X AND ELON MUSK

Well, so the Department of Homeland Security’s AMITT project was ultimately, therefore, a disinformation framework that included many offensive actions, including discrediting alternative media, using bots and sock puppets, pre-bunking, and pushing counter-messaging AND working to influence government policy. This emphatically tells us that politicians are (once again) not the primary actors behind the war on free speech!

In any case, the specific counters to so-called “disinformation” in AMITT and what became its successor framework, called DISARM, include many tactics that we have observed, such as: “name and shame people who disagree with the narrative of the government of the diabolical conglomerates behind certain agendas, like the vaccine holocaust”; simulating misinformation and disinformation campaigns, AND “using banking to cut off access”, which is something Europe is considering against Elon Musk! In addition, the DISARM framework has included creating policy that makes social media police disinformation”. This especially became notable with the opposition towards X – which has exposed that the war on X and Elon Musk itself has a broader history involving diabolical non-state actors – in particular the UN.

Kindly have a listen as Paul Coleman explains how the global war on X, free speech, and Elon Musk was actually years in the making and includes a UN effort to impose Islamic blasphemy laws on the West.

Paul Coleman points out a terrible irony there towards the end, which is that these diabolical tactics aimed at censorship are coming from the people who pretentiously parade themselves as being in the front seat of defending free speech. Which is why I always tend to emphasise that it is a mistake to assume that the state is not an absolute moral actor or a yardstick to measure ethical conduct, especially when we consider that atrocious policies like slavery, the holocaust and apartheid were all legal!

And true to form, in the status quo entities like the EU are weaponising laws against Musk and the X platform in order to fabricate justification for aggressive actions towards Musk. For instance, you’d recall that the European Union sent a letter to Elon Musk, demanding him to censor Donald Trump during their interview in early August 2024, ahead of the US presidential election in November. The EU proceeded to threaten Musk with legal consequences if he does not prevent the spread of what they label as “disinformation.” But, even that threat followed a pattern of autocratic figures looking to have more censorship on the X platform, in light of what they say is a problem consistent with the ills of what they have defined as mis and dis information. And so, what we are seeing now is that in addition to the EU feeling comfortable demanding censorship in a US election to comply with the Digital Services Act, the UK is continuing on a similar trajectory.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

A significant portion of central London was brought to a standstill over the weekend as thousands of demonstrators gathered to protest the UK government’s proposal to roll out mandatory digital ID cards for all residents.

The government claims the measure would streamline access to public services, reduce dependency on physical documents like utility bills, and assist in efforts to curb illegal migration.

But opponents, including civil liberties groups, religious leaders, and concerned citizens, say the plan signals a dangerous step toward creating a “checkpoint society” one where freedom of movement and access to services could be restricted or monitored through a centralized digital system.

“We’re sleepwalking into a surveillance state,” one protester said. “Digital IDs might seem convenient, but they come with a heavy price: our freedom and privacy.”

Not the First Attempt

This isn’t the UK’s first encounter with national ID programs. In the early 2000s, Tony Blair’s Labour government passed the Identity Cards Act 2006, introducing biometric ID cards and a national identity register. However, due to widespread backlash over privacy concerns, the law was repealed in 2010 by the incoming Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition government.

Digital ID critics see the current proposal as a modern reboot of that controversial plan, but with even broader implications due to the digital infrastructure involved.

Growing Opposition

Groups like Big Brother Watch, the Open Rights Group, and various religious figures have warned against normalizing state controlled digital identities.

While the government has not confirmed a timeline for implementation, civil rights advocates say the weekend’s protests are just the beginning of a broader resistance campaign.

“We won’t stop until this plan is shelved permanently,” said a representative from a civil liberties group at the protest. “The British public did not ask for this, and they won’t accept it.”

The Speaker’s decision to exclude the amendment sparked uproar among lawmakers, many of whom rose on points of order, accusing the chair of undermining democratic process and parliamentary norms.

“This is a disgrace to this House,” one MP shouted, while others demanded clarification and justification for the ruling.

The blocked amendment reportedly dealt with environmental oversight and local authority powers issues opposition MPs argue are crucial to ensuring accountability in major infrastructure projects.

Footage from the Commons showed MPs visibly agitated, with some refusing to sit down and others walking out in protest. The Speaker stood firm, citing procedural grounds for the decision and warning MPs against further disruption.

This latest controversy adds to growing tensions in Westminster, where recent procedural rulings have triggered accusations of bias and calls for reform of the Speaker’s powers.

Downing Street declined to comment on the Speaker’s ruling, calling it a matter for Parliament. Opposition leaders, however, have vowed to challenge the decision and are considering measures to bring the amendment back in future debates.

The UK government has been relentless in its push for “backdoor” access to encrypted data, forcing Apple to remove this critical tool that used end-to-end encryption to ensure only the account owner could view their photos, documents, and other sensitive information stored on iCloud. In other words, the government has coerced Apple into exposing the very data that users thought was safe from prying eyes—making them more vulnerable to surveillance and data breaches.

Apple’s response? A lukewarm lament about the loss of this vital security feature and a weak warning that this move will only increase the risk of privacy violations. But don’t be fooled; it’s not just about protecting users anymore. By removing this feature, Apple has effectively made it easier for the government to access your data—without any real checks on how that data is used. With a warrant, law enforcement could now get direct access to everything stored in iCloud, without even Apple being able to offer a protective barrier.

This is all a result of the UK government invoking the Investigatory Powers Act, a draconian law designed to force companies to comply with invasive surveillance practices. The Home Office has pushed for access to encrypted data that even Apple could previously not decrypt—until now.

Effective Friday afternoon, the company quietly disabled the ADP tool for new users, and notified existing users that they’d soon be forced to turn it off. The one bright spot? Apple claims that iMessage and FaceTime will remain end-to-end encrypted. For now.

In a feeble defense, Apple insists it will continue to prioritize security—despite what is, frankly, an egregious surrender to state overreach. The company’s hollow reassurances about a “hope” to restore ADP protections in the future should be taken with a grain of salt.

Experts have rightly called out the government’s heavy-handed tactics. Alan Woodward, a cybersecurity professor at the University of Sussex, slammed the government’s naive assumption that it could simply bully a major tech giant like Apple into submission. According to Woodward, the reality is that weakening encryption in the name of “security” doesn’t just make the UK less safe—it undermines the integrity of encryption for everyone, everywhere. So, in the end, it’s not just about surrendering privacy for British users—it’s about setting a dangerous precedent for global digital security.

In short, Apple’s capitulation to government demands marks a dark day for privacy and a worrying shift in the balance of power between corporations and governments. If we’re not careful, this could be just the beginning of even deeper invasions of our digital lives.