10 ms·

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3l0e4vr0ko https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3l0e4vr0ko I strongly suspect it's also meant to curtail growing support amo

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3l0e4vr0ko https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3l0e4vr0ko I strongly suspect it's also meant to curtail growing support among youth for Palestine in the Israel/Gaza conflict. https://www.facebook.com/reel/665564933022223 https://www.facebook.com/reel/665564933022223 Essentially creating an internet for children/teens that echos the government narrative.

spacebanana7 1y ago
The online safety act was drafted long before Oct 2023. But broadly I agree, in the sense that the government are uncomfortable with political movements they lack the ability to shape or control. In hindsight it's incredible just how much influence the British government has historically had over media. The largest TV and radio stations were often directly government owned (BBC, Radio 1, Channel 4) and many newspapers are vulnerable to defamation / contempt of court accusations / injunctions when they sway too far from the official narratives. Especially on any issue adjacent to criminal justice. Of course, they'll say all of the state owned media operated without political direction. And that regulators / prosecutors operated in a politically neutral fashion with due process and impartiality.
- h2zizzle 1y ago
  Passage and implementation dates count. The Tiktok ban in America was also first floated (and died) well before October 2023. It was revived and passed after pro-Palestinian videos blew up on the platform.
- jemmyw 1y ago
  > Of course, they'll say all of the state owned media operated without political direction Before Brexit I would have said so too. The government regularly clashed with the BBC. And Channel 4 news was a delight. Recently the TV channels have clearly been brought into line via governance and the need to change the funding.
  - closewith 1y ago
    > Before Brexit I would have said so too. Given the dubbing of Gerry Adams, the coverage of Iraq/Afghanistan war crimes, and anything related to Ireland, I don't know you could possibly have believed this. It was just that pre-Brexit, you agreed with the propaganda.
    - spacebanana7 1y ago
      Propaganda is perhaps at its most poisonous when it's stuff you agree with. It's so much harder to see, and likely far more effective at bypassing our critical thinking.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
nrawe 1y ago
So, here's the thing, the BBC has a whole section of its news site dedicated to the conflict, including documentation of alleged atrocities committed by Israel and Hamas. Its produced documentaries detailing the settlers movement. The BBC is paid for by the taxpayers. LBC regularly has pro-Israel and pro-Palestine people on. GBNews, Sky and the Murdock-verse have their views mostly from a pro-Israel POV, more left-leaning papers like the Guardian continue to report in favour of the Palestinian people (not Hamas). So if the government had a major problem with the a free speech, its doing a pretty good job of not showing that. In the Commons, the argument hasn't been against the humanitarian crisis faced. However, the situation is more complicated when Hamas and a significant portion of the Israeli government want to eradicate each other and end any hopes of the two-state solution, and act accordingly violent. The situation with Palestine Action being made proscribed also isn't because of their beliefs, but their actions. You can't commit criminal activity like destruction of property and violence against people for political reasons and not come under the remit of anti-terror legislation. The same has happened to environmentalist groups that have taken their actions too far, and for groups like the IRA pre-Good Friday agreement. I could walk to my local town centre with a placard for either saying: "Stop Genocide in Palestine" or "Down with Hamas" this weekend and not be arrested.
- vidarh 1y ago
  > I could walk to my local town centre with a placard for either saying: "Stop Genocide in Palestine" or "Down with Hamas" this weekend and not be arrested. You might "just" get threatened with arrest: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-t... Or you might get arrested: https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/peter-tatchell-arrested-at-palestine-protest-on-fake-charges/ https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/peter-tatchell-arres... There are many similar ones, but they are now much harder to find due to the hundreds of arrests over Palestine Action.
  - nrawe 1y ago
    Right, supporting PA is illegal, opposing what's happening in Gaza is not. That's why I specifically didn't say having a placard with a message supporting PA, but "Stop Genocide in Palestine". That is the detail that matters.

spacebanana7 1y ago

The online safety act was drafted long before Oct 2023. But broadly I agree, in the sense that the government are uncomfortable with political movements they lack the ability to shape or control. In hindsight it's incredible just how much influence the British government has historically had over media. The largest TV and radio stations were often directly government owned (BBC, Radio 1, Channel 4) and many newspapers are vulnerable to defamation / contempt of court accusations / injunctions when they sway too far from the official narratives. Especially on any issue adjacent to criminal justice. Of course, they'll say all of the state owned media operated without political direction. And that regulators / prosecutors operated in a politically neutral fashion with due process and impartiality.

h2zizzle 1y ago
Passage and implementation dates count. The Tiktok ban in America was also first floated (and died) well before October 2023. It was revived and passed after pro-Palestinian videos blew up on the platform.
jemmyw 1y ago
> Of course, they'll say all of the state owned media operated without political direction Before Brexit I would have said so too. The government regularly clashed with the BBC. And Channel 4 news was a delight. Recently the TV channels have clearly been brought into line via governance and the need to change the funding.
- closewith 1y ago
  > Before Brexit I would have said so too. Given the dubbing of Gerry Adams, the coverage of Iraq/Afghanistan war crimes, and anything related to Ireland, I don't know you could possibly have believed this. It was just that pre-Brexit, you agreed with the propaganda.
  - spacebanana7 1y ago
    Propaganda is perhaps at its most poisonous when it's stuff you agree with. It's so much harder to see, and likely far more effective at bypassing our critical thinking.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

nrawe 1y ago

So, here's the thing, the BBC has a whole section of its news site dedicated to the conflict, including documentation of alleged atrocities committed by Israel and Hamas. Its produced documentaries detailing the settlers movement. The BBC is paid for by the taxpayers. LBC regularly has pro-Israel and pro-Palestine people on. GBNews, Sky and the Murdock-verse have their views mostly from a pro-Israel POV, more left-leaning papers like the Guardian continue to report in favour of the Palestinian people (not Hamas). So if the government had a major problem with the a free speech, its doing a pretty good job of not showing that. In the Commons, the argument hasn't been against the humanitarian crisis faced. However, the situation is more complicated when Hamas and a significant portion of the Israeli government want to eradicate each other and end any hopes of the two-state solution, and act accordingly violent. The situation with Palestine Action being made proscribed also isn't because of their beliefs, but their actions. You can't commit criminal activity like destruction of property and violence against people for political reasons and not come under the remit of anti-terror legislation. The same has happened to environmentalist groups that have taken their actions too far, and for groups like the IRA pre-Good Friday agreement. I could walk to my local town centre with a placard for either saying: "Stop Genocide in Palestine" or "Down with Hamas" this weekend and not be arrested.

vidarh 1y ago
> I could walk to my local town centre with a placard for either saying: "Stop Genocide in Palestine" or "Down with Hamas" this weekend and not be arrested. You might "just" get threatened with arrest: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-t... Or you might get arrested: https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/peter-tatchell-arrested-at-palestine-protest-on-fake-charges/ https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/peter-tatchell-arres... There are many similar ones, but they are now much harder to find due to the hundreds of arrests over Palestine Action.
- nrawe 1y ago
  Right, supporting PA is illegal, opposing what's happening in Gaza is not. That's why I specifically didn't say having a placard with a message supporting PA, but "Stop Genocide in Palestine". That is the detail that matters.