While this is a positive thing to be cheered on, the consequences of Rumble standing up to the Government is that the second the Online Safety Bill becomes law, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport with Ofcom as regulator, will ban Rumble and require all ISPs and VPNs to block access or face ruinous consequences themselves for their failure to do what Government demands of them as a service accessible in the UK. The alternative would be for Rumble to pull service from UK content creators and viewers.
Considering this stance, maybe we now know who plied pressure on the BBC to ply pressure on YouTube to get Brand demonetised/cancelled from that platform?
Rumble is a US company so why would they even care to block french users instead of telling them to pound sand.
Are they worried that they will go after companies or attempt to attack them through the financial systems?
Going off on a tangent here, but from the beginning shouldn't we have been treating constitutional articles and amendments as equivalent to the law, or making laws to mirror the constitution - with actual punishments for violators? Because somehow despite the constitution being "the law of the land" it's actually treated with less weight than federal law. Our political leaders "fear" the law more than the constitution, and when in power use it against their enemies as much as possible. Perhaps we need to make it so that when the constitution is violated, the violator (always a government actor or subordinate) has a penalty just as if they'd violated federal law.
While you make a good point, government actors violate federal law all the time anyway and in the few times they even get caught doing so (with the law begrudgingly acting on them) they get a slap on the wrist, use our tax money to pay the "fines" and then move on.
So we need to actually make government lawbreakers beholden to laws with actual consequence to begin with before your change would matter.
Because it's not a law, and because the founding fathers were British Christians.
They didn't even really oppose the king until they realized that the institution of the king could be wielded against his subjects, in the same way that parliament had been wielded against them. The idea that it was even possible for the king to commit a crime was barely over 100 years old.
As such, they had a very foundational belief that it was required for government to be populated by people of the literal highest moral and intellectual prowess. The British aristocracy had fostered that belief, but had clearly failed from the prospective of the Americans.
Their contrast was the Romans, particularly the writings of Cicero at the fall of the Roman Republic. Clearly you can't trust a government with emergency powers (this is why Boston was seized and speech suspended). You don't want a Cesarian to wield the angry masses. Cicero wrote very clearly how he manipulated the demos in democracy to his advantage, and he didn't like it. He also knew it was what the Cesarians were doing to gain their power, and it was what the "Conservatives" were doing in reprisal back to stop Caesar.
The Americans were already very familiar with Blackwell (who was an English Liberal judge), and the old British system of the Star Chamber. They have a terrible balancing act. You need the judiciary to be independent of the government, but it only exists to arbitrate justice within the bounds of the law. The judges also have to be controlled by the law, otherwise the courts become the unaccountable force that the executive branch could be.
Somehow, you have to make the legislature susceptible to the law, without giving the judiciary defacto control over the government. And how the hell are the judiciary going to govern themselves anyway???
In fact, a good example of an overpowered judiciary is what's happening to Trump. A state judge is doing everything in her power to keep a presidential candidate from campaigning. By definition, a single judge is now holding the entire presidential election hostage. Fundamentally, you would never actually think that this would need to be done, because it was assumed that the state would protect the state and the feds would protect the feds, so this basically wouldn't be possible. Because it's Trump, and because federal over-reach has taken place, the state protects the feds and the feds protect themselves.
Fundamentally, the correct solution to all this should be the impeachment process. That was the compromise here. A legislator or executive can't be charged with a crime until impeached. Once impeached and removed from office you can charge them with a crime. And to be clear, impeachment is explicitly a political process, not a judicial one. That's why the impeachment process is governed by Roberts Rules of Order (a legislative protocol), and not by standing Jurisprudence. It's why senators can ask leading questions and things like that; it's also why it's a removal from office, and not an actual conviction with a sentence.
There's a huge problem with this, and if you look carefully, it is why Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Caesar was actually going to be prosecuted for leading a violent storming of the senate chamber. He became consol explicitly because the senate couldn't charge him with a crime while as consol. When the Senate finally did reject his cosolship (he wasn't supposed to be consol by that time, his term had run out, but he kept pretending it hadn't), he realized that his political career would be over unless he removed the senate. So he did.
The Democrats are currently accusing Trump of literally doing this.
Your better question is, how do we hold these elected leaders accountable to the law when the courts keep protecting them? Fundamentally, these are political problems. It's political control over the courts, and political influence over them. The legislature needs to be cycled out more than it is, and the appointments for judges makes the judges friendly with the government.
I would argue re-structuring judicial appointments and even congressional elections by changing a lot of the voting system (things like that I don't want to go into detail on here), making impeachments easier and a more regular occurrence is a very good start. Congress never impeaches judges, and they have all the right in the world to, always have. Again, it's a political process, not a judicial one. If the appointment is political, than so is the removal. This is mostly because statists want the judiciary and the legislature to act in a synchronous manner so that there can be no challenge to the authority of the state. One of the best things that Trump ever (accidentally) did was get impeached twice. Presidents should be regularly impeached, because it drags them in front of the Senate to keep them accountable. The problem is that the Senate is elected, and not a representation of the states. So, you gotta change that 17th amendment. Judges should also be regularly impeached. No one should have a life appointment for a judge, not from term limits, but from political impeachments.
"That could make the government a bit dysfunctional because the political winds could sweep the government in and out"
Yes, that's the point. The point is the keep the government from being stable enough to tyrannize the public. The forced instability is what keeps the government from tyrannical. That's the nature of the deep state. It is "unstable" for the executive branch to purge itself every time there is a new president; but that is the most important function to keep the executive branch from tyrannizing you. If the president can't remove his predecessor's appointments, you guarantee a deep state.
"But an unstable government could destabilize society."
No, because the government should not be powerful enough to be the force of power in society; that is a tyranny. The government doesn't regulate society at all. It merely helps in compensation, and defense of the realm. The government must not be allowed to be the stabilizing force for society in the first place. Society must be stabilized by the moral character of it's people. Deferring morals to the state is the foundational failure.
The Founding Fathers, as radically liberal as they were, still believed that the state could be a moral force; as they themselves had repeatedly governed with careful respect to the care of their subjects, and to the posterity of their civilization. They really were "better men" than what we have, and that was their greatest mistake: thinking people would be as good of character them.
A constitution isn't a collection of laws. It is the framework that the law resides in. It's like saying that a mathematical axiom is a law of mathematics. That's not actually true. An axiom is a pre-supposition of the mathematical framework that has to be assumed in order for the model to function. Mathematical theorems and laws are derived from the axioms. If the axiom is invalidated, the model fails, and the laws no longer makes sense logically. The constitution serves a similar purpose, it is the framework that makes laws possible. Without a constitution, you have no foundation of law to make laws over.
That'd probably get the bill revoked being honest, EVERY media site like YouTube, Rumble even Facebook has more power than the current UK government
They're only doing it because they want to do it themselves abd using the UK as an excuse. If they didn't want to do it, they'd shut services leaving MASSIVE backlash from the normies in the UK unable to watch their videos abd quick submission from the government.
MPs believe that everyone watches the BBC, Netflix and YouTube. Organisations and companies who will bend over backwards for whatever the Government demands of them. As far as MPs are concerned, Rumble is an alternative platform that they won't shed a tear banning. If anything, they probably consider it one of the primary avenues for "harmful" content they seem intent on getting rid of. We know different but does society as whole?
In reality not the first two but definitely the last. But that depends on how long the content stay on there. If YouTube is successful in sanitising itself, the creators will leave and make new platforms or use alternatives as it's too easy to do nowadays.
Sure you'll have the slow adoption of, ironically, the normie zoomers but if the ones making entertainment leave, like Hollywood, the viewers will eventually follow.
That'd probably get the bill revoked being honest, EVERY media site like YouTube, Rumble even Facebook has more power than the current UK government
Completely disagree. These governments do have more power than these corporations. It's why corporations are prepared to spend massive amounts of money bribing politicians. In truth, they don't control them. The party controls the politicians, and corporations are getting the scraps. In all the corruption we've seen, the corruption is almost never coming at the behest of the corporations, but of the government. The corporations seek to exploit the opportunities that the government gives them.
Covid's a good example. Pfizer didn't cause the outbreak. They didn't advocate for the lockdowns. They didn't publish the statistics that 20 million Americans would die by Dec. 2020. They certainly don't control the WHO. They only started working on a vaccine because Operation Warpspeed requested it and lifted regulations out of the way. They only broke the contract and didn't provide a vaccine (instead a therapeutic injection) specifically because the government didn't abide by enforcing their contract, changed the definition of a vaccine, and promised not to charge; because the political consequences of centralizing control were far more important than any injection.
Pfizer wasn't doing bio-weapons research in Wuhan that DARPA refused to fund, that was the NIH. Twitter didn't wake up one day and ban Trump, CISA spoon-fed disinformation, and the FBI groomed the head of moderation to get Twitter to ban him. Haliburton didn't feed fake evidence of "yellow cake uranium" to the CIA to justify an invasion of Iraq. Colt didn't cause the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Dole Foods didn't request the overthrow of Guatemala. The White Star Line didn't ask to ship weapons across the Atlantic on the HMS Lusitania.
These corporations are merely extensions of government actions. The UK government has power over corporations, because the UK government's power is not limited to legal mechanisms. Tony Blair is still one of the single most powerful people in the UK government, because he is the true political leader from the shadows.
As an analogy to late Rome, I see the multinational corporations as the barbarian invaders. They are much more nimble than governments and can attack and retreat as convenient, but they are still vulnerable to a concentration of government action.
What our governments are doing is trying to play ball with them, using them against political enemies, which is allowing them to get inside the existing power structures meant to protect against them.
I figure one of two outcomes: either they'll get enough access to simply overrun governments entirely, or they'll be subsumed by the systems they're trying to infiltrate. Either way, it looks like a state/corporate hybrid and bad for everyone else.
They're not barbarians. They are warbands sent as proxies on behalf of other governments. Our government is allowing these warbands to settle at the behest of other governments that have bribed ours. It's not so much as trying to "play ball" as intentionally using them.
King Charles was executed primarily because after he was expelled he reinvaded England with a French & Scottish Army, filled with Catholics. The King of England invaded England with a foreign army. That's why the English said: "No, it's impossible that this isn't a crime. If we can commit crimes against ourselves like suicide, then the king can commit crimes against his subjects like invading with a foreign army and killing his subjects."
All these companies should be beaten like pinatas until they spill the beans on who has been pushing for censorship.Does Tortious interference not exist anymore?
A significant amount of the lobbying for the bill, beside the usual "won't somebody please think of the children" was to protect women online. Many of the headline protections from "harms" happen to be actions and behaviours toward women. From cyber-stalking and cyber-flashing to unwanted behaviour and communication.
Going to be fun for Tinder and the other dating apps when they have to vet and verify the identities of every male as a result of "lessons learnt after Brand".
Even if he was convicted, he shouldn't be banned unless that was a judgement decided by the court. The parliament member should face consequences for attempting this extrajudicial punishment.
She'll probably get a promotion to the cabinet or become the next Minister of Truth, sorry, I mean "Culture, Media and Sport". The media will laud and applaud her while demanding Rishi Sunak give her what she "rightly" deserves - the said promotion.
Fun fact - the MP who wrote this letter is the daughter of a well known news and children's television presenter.
This is a good thing about new growing companies as Rumble is still growing, therefore losing their small British audience is unlikely to do much as it'll correspondingly grow their American audience.
A bigger company (assuming purely neutral) would have a financial incentive to bow to these demands.
Good on them. When they start letting people sign up for their cloud servers at rumble.cloud I may move some business from AWS over their way just to show my support.
Thankfully there is still some common sense and principled (former) politicians around. One of the men libelled in the case of Carl Beech who falsely accused several MPs and prominent figures of child abuse has written to the Prime Minister sharing his concern over the desire for retribution enacted by social media companies via Government pressure.
It's the election cycle. In January 2025 there are new elections in the UK. This gives them one year and three months to take out undesirable political influencers (in previous elections Brand was courted by politician Miliband, left-progressive newspapers and others to voice his unqualified opinion), similar as what has been happening in the USA.
The one thing I would say is that the timing of these allegations, days before the bill was due to pass, looks very suspect. They knew Rumble is the primary host of Brand's content, they knew Rumble would refuse any demand to demonetise/cancel him and this appears to be a trap where Rumble will be the first to be made an example of, a video content site that the Government will brand as "harmful" to send a message to every other website and service.
One thing the Government is very good at is psychological operations. I'd recommend reading up on Laura Dodsworth's A State of Fear and the follow up, Free Your Mind while you can.
it's insane because he's historically been a bernie bro socialist, yet he's clearly had too much to think and is increasingly sounding like a 1990s liberal democrat populist.
Non-Twitter link: https://nitter.eu.projectsegfau.lt/rumblevideo/status/1704584927834960196
Archive: https://archive.ph/j3KfG
While this is a positive thing to be cheered on, the consequences of Rumble standing up to the Government is that the second the Online Safety Bill becomes law, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport with Ofcom as regulator, will ban Rumble and require all ISPs and VPNs to block access or face ruinous consequences themselves for their failure to do what Government demands of them as a service accessible in the UK. The alternative would be for Rumble to pull service from UK content creators and viewers.
Considering this stance, maybe we now know who plied pressure on the BBC to ply pressure on YouTube to get Brand demonetised/cancelled from that platform?
Didn't Rumble voluntarily leave the French market a year or two ago because of similar demands or legislation by the French government?
Edit: https://archive.ph/RfpK5
Looks like they pulled out last November over French demands to remove Russian content.
Does the 1st amednmnet not apply?
In France?
No, seeing as it's US law...
Rumble is a US company so why would they even care to block french users instead of telling them to pound sand. Are they worried that they will go after companies or attempt to attack them through the financial systems?
the isp and financial processors are more than happy to do the governments bidding, sometimes even unprompted
Because France might parlay it into wider EU action if Rumble snubs them.
It's not a law, it's an amendment to the constitution. Point stands though.
Going off on a tangent here, but from the beginning shouldn't we have been treating constitutional articles and amendments as equivalent to the law, or making laws to mirror the constitution - with actual punishments for violators? Because somehow despite the constitution being "the law of the land" it's actually treated with less weight than federal law. Our political leaders "fear" the law more than the constitution, and when in power use it against their enemies as much as possible. Perhaps we need to make it so that when the constitution is violated, the violator (always a government actor or subordinate) has a penalty just as if they'd violated federal law.
While you make a good point, government actors violate federal law all the time anyway and in the few times they even get caught doing so (with the law begrudgingly acting on them) they get a slap on the wrist, use our tax money to pay the "fines" and then move on.
So we need to actually make government lawbreakers beholden to laws with actual consequence to begin with before your change would matter.
Because it's not a law, and because the founding fathers were British Christians.
They didn't even really oppose the king until they realized that the institution of the king could be wielded against his subjects, in the same way that parliament had been wielded against them. The idea that it was even possible for the king to commit a crime was barely over 100 years old.
As such, they had a very foundational belief that it was required for government to be populated by people of the literal highest moral and intellectual prowess. The British aristocracy had fostered that belief, but had clearly failed from the prospective of the Americans.
Their contrast was the Romans, particularly the writings of Cicero at the fall of the Roman Republic. Clearly you can't trust a government with emergency powers (this is why Boston was seized and speech suspended). You don't want a Cesarian to wield the angry masses. Cicero wrote very clearly how he manipulated the demos in democracy to his advantage, and he didn't like it. He also knew it was what the Cesarians were doing to gain their power, and it was what the "Conservatives" were doing in reprisal back to stop Caesar.
The Americans were already very familiar with Blackwell (who was an English Liberal judge), and the old British system of the Star Chamber. They have a terrible balancing act. You need the judiciary to be independent of the government, but it only exists to arbitrate justice within the bounds of the law. The judges also have to be controlled by the law, otherwise the courts become the unaccountable force that the executive branch could be.
Somehow, you have to make the legislature susceptible to the law, without giving the judiciary defacto control over the government. And how the hell are the judiciary going to govern themselves anyway???
In fact, a good example of an overpowered judiciary is what's happening to Trump. A state judge is doing everything in her power to keep a presidential candidate from campaigning. By definition, a single judge is now holding the entire presidential election hostage. Fundamentally, you would never actually think that this would need to be done, because it was assumed that the state would protect the state and the feds would protect the feds, so this basically wouldn't be possible. Because it's Trump, and because federal over-reach has taken place, the state protects the feds and the feds protect themselves.
Fundamentally, the correct solution to all this should be the impeachment process. That was the compromise here. A legislator or executive can't be charged with a crime until impeached. Once impeached and removed from office you can charge them with a crime. And to be clear, impeachment is explicitly a political process, not a judicial one. That's why the impeachment process is governed by Roberts Rules of Order (a legislative protocol), and not by standing Jurisprudence. It's why senators can ask leading questions and things like that; it's also why it's a removal from office, and not an actual conviction with a sentence.
There's a huge problem with this, and if you look carefully, it is why Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Caesar was actually going to be prosecuted for leading a violent storming of the senate chamber. He became consol explicitly because the senate couldn't charge him with a crime while as consol. When the Senate finally did reject his cosolship (he wasn't supposed to be consol by that time, his term had run out, but he kept pretending it hadn't), he realized that his political career would be over unless he removed the senate. So he did.
The Democrats are currently accusing Trump of literally doing this.
Your better question is, how do we hold these elected leaders accountable to the law when the courts keep protecting them? Fundamentally, these are political problems. It's political control over the courts, and political influence over them. The legislature needs to be cycled out more than it is, and the appointments for judges makes the judges friendly with the government.
I would argue re-structuring judicial appointments and even congressional elections by changing a lot of the voting system (things like that I don't want to go into detail on here), making impeachments easier and a more regular occurrence is a very good start. Congress never impeaches judges, and they have all the right in the world to, always have. Again, it's a political process, not a judicial one. If the appointment is political, than so is the removal. This is mostly because statists want the judiciary and the legislature to act in a synchronous manner so that there can be no challenge to the authority of the state. One of the best things that Trump ever (accidentally) did was get impeached twice. Presidents should be regularly impeached, because it drags them in front of the Senate to keep them accountable. The problem is that the Senate is elected, and not a representation of the states. So, you gotta change that 17th amendment. Judges should also be regularly impeached. No one should have a life appointment for a judge, not from term limits, but from political impeachments.
"That could make the government a bit dysfunctional because the political winds could sweep the government in and out"
Yes, that's the point. The point is the keep the government from being stable enough to tyrannize the public. The forced instability is what keeps the government from tyrannical. That's the nature of the deep state. It is "unstable" for the executive branch to purge itself every time there is a new president; but that is the most important function to keep the executive branch from tyrannizing you. If the president can't remove his predecessor's appointments, you guarantee a deep state.
"But an unstable government could destabilize society."
No, because the government should not be powerful enough to be the force of power in society; that is a tyranny. The government doesn't regulate society at all. It merely helps in compensation, and defense of the realm. The government must not be allowed to be the stabilizing force for society in the first place. Society must be stabilized by the moral character of it's people. Deferring morals to the state is the foundational failure.
The Founding Fathers, as radically liberal as they were, still believed that the state could be a moral force; as they themselves had repeatedly governed with careful respect to the care of their subjects, and to the posterity of their civilization. They really were "better men" than what we have, and that was their greatest mistake: thinking people would be as good of character them.
Strong government, weak people. Strong people, weak government.
A constitution isn't a collection of laws. It is the framework that the law resides in. It's like saying that a mathematical axiom is a law of mathematics. That's not actually true. An axiom is a pre-supposition of the mathematical framework that has to be assumed in order for the model to function. Mathematical theorems and laws are derived from the axioms. If the axiom is invalidated, the model fails, and the laws no longer makes sense logically. The constitution serves a similar purpose, it is the framework that makes laws possible. Without a constitution, you have no foundation of law to make laws over.
As a constitutional amendment, is it not the highest law of the US?
It's not technically a "law" per se, because it's the framework of the law. It's a bit pedantic.
Pedantry? On KiA2?
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!
:)
That'd probably get the bill revoked being honest, EVERY media site like YouTube, Rumble even Facebook has more power than the current UK government
They're only doing it because they want to do it themselves abd using the UK as an excuse. If they didn't want to do it, they'd shut services leaving MASSIVE backlash from the normies in the UK unable to watch their videos abd quick submission from the government.
MPs believe that everyone watches the BBC, Netflix and YouTube. Organisations and companies who will bend over backwards for whatever the Government demands of them. As far as MPs are concerned, Rumble is an alternative platform that they won't shed a tear banning. If anything, they probably consider it one of the primary avenues for "harmful" content they seem intent on getting rid of. We know different but does society as whole?
In reality not the first two but definitely the last. But that depends on how long the content stay on there. If YouTube is successful in sanitising itself, the creators will leave and make new platforms or use alternatives as it's too easy to do nowadays.
Sure you'll have the slow adoption of, ironically, the normie zoomers but if the ones making entertainment leave, like Hollywood, the viewers will eventually follow.
Completely disagree. These governments do have more power than these corporations. It's why corporations are prepared to spend massive amounts of money bribing politicians. In truth, they don't control them. The party controls the politicians, and corporations are getting the scraps. In all the corruption we've seen, the corruption is almost never coming at the behest of the corporations, but of the government. The corporations seek to exploit the opportunities that the government gives them.
Covid's a good example. Pfizer didn't cause the outbreak. They didn't advocate for the lockdowns. They didn't publish the statistics that 20 million Americans would die by Dec. 2020. They certainly don't control the WHO. They only started working on a vaccine because Operation Warpspeed requested it and lifted regulations out of the way. They only broke the contract and didn't provide a vaccine (instead a therapeutic injection) specifically because the government didn't abide by enforcing their contract, changed the definition of a vaccine, and promised not to charge; because the political consequences of centralizing control were far more important than any injection.
Pfizer wasn't doing bio-weapons research in Wuhan that DARPA refused to fund, that was the NIH. Twitter didn't wake up one day and ban Trump, CISA spoon-fed disinformation, and the FBI groomed the head of moderation to get Twitter to ban him. Haliburton didn't feed fake evidence of "yellow cake uranium" to the CIA to justify an invasion of Iraq. Colt didn't cause the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Dole Foods didn't request the overthrow of Guatemala. The White Star Line didn't ask to ship weapons across the Atlantic on the HMS Lusitania.
These corporations are merely extensions of government actions. The UK government has power over corporations, because the UK government's power is not limited to legal mechanisms. Tony Blair is still one of the single most powerful people in the UK government, because he is the true political leader from the shadows.
As an analogy to late Rome, I see the multinational corporations as the barbarian invaders. They are much more nimble than governments and can attack and retreat as convenient, but they are still vulnerable to a concentration of government action.
What our governments are doing is trying to play ball with them, using them against political enemies, which is allowing them to get inside the existing power structures meant to protect against them.
I figure one of two outcomes: either they'll get enough access to simply overrun governments entirely, or they'll be subsumed by the systems they're trying to infiltrate. Either way, it looks like a state/corporate hybrid and bad for everyone else.
They're not barbarians. They are warbands sent as proxies on behalf of other governments. Our government is allowing these warbands to settle at the behest of other governments that have bribed ours. It's not so much as trying to "play ball" as intentionally using them.
King Charles was executed primarily because after he was expelled he reinvaded England with a French & Scottish Army, filled with Catholics. The King of England invaded England with a foreign army. That's why the English said: "No, it's impossible that this isn't a crime. If we can commit crimes against ourselves like suicide, then the king can commit crimes against his subjects like invading with a foreign army and killing his subjects."
We're much closer to that.
Every day the UK proves once again that is has become a dystopian shithole.
inb4 full police raid.
Maybe if he converts to Islam and rapes a 12 year old girl they will ignore him.
All these companies should be beaten like pinatas until they spill the beans on who has been pushing for censorship.Does Tortious interference not exist anymore?
Only for people who aren't enemies to the regime.
Did the Imp know that female MPs were behind this cancel culture coordinated attack on the innocent Russell Brand?
edit:
The woman who wrote these letters allegedly wrecked TWO families WITH kids in order to get laid….
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/caroline-dinenage-mark-lancaster-cameron-2011834
Why are the people pushing this kind of thing almost always guilty of something more serious…
edit2:
She is also pressuring GB News to STOP giving him a chance to defend himself :
https://x.com/alexandrosm/status/1704714707196956874
Fucking disgusting behavior.
A significant amount of the lobbying for the bill, beside the usual "won't somebody please think of the children" was to protect women online. Many of the headline protections from "harms" happen to be actions and behaviours toward women. From cyber-stalking and cyber-flashing to unwanted behaviour and communication.
Going to be fun for Tinder and the other dating apps when they have to vet and verify the identities of every male as a result of "lessons learnt after Brand".
Even if he was convicted, he shouldn't be banned unless that was a judgement decided by the court. The parliament member should face consequences for attempting this extrajudicial punishment.
She'll probably get a promotion to the cabinet or become the next Minister of Truth, sorry, I mean "Culture, Media and Sport". The media will laud and applaud her while demanding Rishi Sunak give her what she "rightly" deserves - the said promotion.
Fun fact - the MP who wrote this letter is the daughter of a well known news and children's television presenter.
First they came for Tommy Robinson (follow him on Telegram).
He had 2 million facebook followers but was removed for calling out muslims raping UK girls.
Ironic that the UK government now pretends to care about female victims?
This is a good thing about new growing companies as Rumble is still growing, therefore losing their small British audience is unlikely to do much as it'll correspondingly grow their American audience.
A bigger company (assuming purely neutral) would have a financial incentive to bow to these demands.
Good for Rumble though.
The fucking arrogance of this request though.
Good on them. When they start letting people sign up for their cloud servers at rumble.cloud I may move some business from AWS over their way just to show my support.
In other words "fuck off and die, commie."
Thankfully there is still some common sense and principled (former) politicians around. One of the men libelled in the case of Carl Beech who falsely accused several MPs and prominent figures of child abuse has written to the Prime Minister sharing his concern over the desire for retribution enacted by social media companies via Government pressure.
A rare white pill in all of this.
https://nitter.privacydev.net/KHarveyProctor/status/1704767500158701911
It's the election cycle. In January 2025 there are new elections in the UK. This gives them one year and three months to take out undesirable political influencers (in previous elections Brand was courted by politician Miliband, left-progressive newspapers and others to voice his unqualified opinion), similar as what has been happening in the USA.
The one thing I would say is that the timing of these allegations, days before the bill was due to pass, looks very suspect. They knew Rumble is the primary host of Brand's content, they knew Rumble would refuse any demand to demonetise/cancel him and this appears to be a trap where Rumble will be the first to be made an example of, a video content site that the Government will brand as "harmful" to send a message to every other website and service.
One thing the Government is very good at is psychological operations. I'd recommend reading up on Laura Dodsworth's A State of Fear and the follow up, Free Your Mind while you can.
it's insane because he's historically been a bernie bro socialist, yet he's clearly had too much to think and is increasingly sounding like a 1990s liberal democrat populist.
Not yet. The bill has not been given Royal Assent yet. Until that moment, the ISPs and VPNs could easily tell the Government to get lost too.