I know the common response to this post is "it's fake" but bear in mind that socially awkward, shy and men who keep themselves to themselves (whether MGTOW or wanting to focus on work and believe work is not a place to socialise) are deemed an unknown quantity. Such men are considered unsafe and society will do everything in its power to keep women safe above all else. Women value their own safety above all else because of sexual dimorphism. Groups base their perceptions on others primarily based on the feelings and intuitions of women. So even if you call this story fake, chances are there are many men in such a situation facing their own MeToo moment, not for being a sex pest but for keeping themselves to themselves and not interacting with women.
Bill lowlights:
-
Despite media reports that it's only pornographic websites that have to implement it, any website that is not suitable for children (including this one and any other website that allows user generated content) will have to verify the ID of all visitors. As a result, anonymity will be abolished (except for those reporting accusations to the Police or media, obviously). Might be why Elon announced a paywall for X to verify individuals. A system that could be used by other websites who can't afford to implement their own compliant solution.
-
Ofcom becomes the Ministry of Truth and has the power to block any website or compel sites to remove content the Government does not like. Example, Russell Brand's channel on the likes of Rumble.
-
Backdoors for end-to-end encryption that will make the likes of Telegram, Signal and WhatsApp pointless. Everything can be snooped on. You have no privacy.
-
Websites and VPN's accessible and operating in the UK are covered.
-
Websites must remove content that is deemed illegal or face massive fines (£18m or 10% of global revenue, whichever is higher). All ISPs and VPNs must block content if requested to do so or face being blocked, fined and blocked by payment processors.
You may have noticed in the last push toward getting this to become law, the focus was on the safety of women and children. Demands to abolish anonymity, unwanted communication, trolling, criticism and any potential for anything not child friendly to be viewable without extensive checks and ID.
Also, Elon announced the proposal to paywall X and allow X to become the way you identify yourself (for said fee) to X and other websites who can't afford to implement their own implementation to verify ID. Hours later, the Online Safety Bill which will require ID authentication and verification passes its final Government hurdle. Coincidence?
VPN's do have to adhere to the new law or face consequences. That could include crippling fines (£18m or 10% of global turnover, whichever is greater). If Labour get into power next year, as is likely to happen, they plan to go further and outright ban VPN's for residential use, as they threatened to bring forward an amendment to the Online Safety Bill but failed to do so.
Non-Twitter link: https://nitter.salastil.com/disclosetv/status/1704168372324163631
Archive: https://archive.ph/tcA7d
It's over. There's nothing more to say.
The BBC is a corporation whose existence is granted by a Royal Charter, funded by the licence fee and Channel 4 is a statutory owned corporation, funded by commercials and sponsorship. ITV and Channel 5 are purely commercial companies but they as well as the BBC and Channel 4 are classed as public service broadcasters. Back in the analogue terrestrial days, there was only space for four, later five, channels to broadcast and so bandwidth was scarce and running a television channel was deemed a privilege that carried obligations. Such as having to broadcast a minimum number of news bulletins, kids programming, documentaries and other obligations. Back then we did not have the woke and bias issues we do now.
We even had Teletext services (for those who don't know what Teletext is, it is a news and information service broadcast over the air free of charge in unused parts of the TV picture data) and they also carried public service broadcasting obligations, including for Channel 4.
They still have those obligations today in return for holding the first five electronic programme guide positions on all platforms.
Brand was primarily on Big Brother's Eforum and its rebrand, Big Brother's Big Forum, The Russell Brand Show, Russell Brand's Ponderland as well as the odd comedy stand-up show, one-off shows plus guest appearances on other shows. He's also been on BBC Radio 2, talkSPORT, FX, MTV and BBC Four.
Channel 4 is a statutory corporation. What that means is that the Government owns it but like the BBC, it has editorial independence from the Government. It isn't funded by the licence fee like the BBC but by advertising and sponsorships like the other commercial broadcasters. It is the forth largest reaching UK broadcaster behind the BBC, ITV and Sky according to BARB. For people in the US and a few other countries, we don't name our traditional terrestrial channels based on the frequency they broadcast on, we name them based on prominence - BBC One and Two first before ITV (legally known as Channel 3), Channel 4 and Channel 5.
It has the same left wing bent as the majority of other broadcasters and is probably one of the most left leaning broadcasters. It is a general entertainment channel predominately showing American sitcoms, daytime programming for women, The Simpsons, Hollyoaks - a young adult soap, news as per their broadcast licence and prime time general entertainment and documentary programming as well as films (they have their own film production company that also has a channel on terrestrial television) and sport, predominately football/soccer.
They recently aired an Hollyoaks special episode on incels, smearing them as radicalised extremists. They just announced that the soap is moving online. They have also non-platformed the Conservative Party from a climate change debate on their news programme.
In terms of financial health, their revenue was £1.14bn for 2022. However, they have recently axed a number of shows as they may now be struggling financially. It may be in part because they've invested in a number of sporting rights.
I watched the whole thing. Why has no-one, including the comedian with information on numerous comedians and celebrities who have done "criminal acts" and Channel 4 with Brand's alleged "criminality", gone to the police? Surely we want to get any "criminal" who is a threat and a danger off the street, given their day in court and if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, put in prison - right? Instead, Channel 4 at the end of the programme just invited people to contact them if they had any allegation on any celebrity or comedian.
Worse still, there were other agendas being suggested. Beside the usual "listen and believe" we would expect, there were also suggestions that anyone under 22 should be considered a "child" and for age-gap relationships to be banned because they consider them exploitative. No doubt to lobby for any future anti-misogyny law that is coming to the UK, Scotland first.
One of the contributors, the former controller of BBC One, stated that when it comes to safeguarding, the broadcaster is jointly responsible. Who did Brand predominately work for? Channel 4. So either Channel 4 is doing a smear job against Brand and have destroyed their reputation or Channel 4 has repeatedly failed in its duty of safeguarding vulnerable women. Which is it, Channel 4?
I'm am watching the suggestion from Better Bachelor that AI was used to generate the voice of Nadia for The Sunday Times, who collaborated with Channel 4. Joker's rationale seems reasonable. Though it is likely that the excuse will be that they used a generator to "protect the anonymity of the victim". But then, why not disclose it? Everything here looks shady.
The tactics being used here mirror those used in East Germany by the Stasi against dissenters and critics of the state. It is likely that media corporations like Channel 4 have files on everyone with improprieties ready to be aired when necessary. But only for those who happen to be against the mainstream and establishment narrative. Brand will be the first, he will most certainly not be the last.
Brand will have Channel 4 in checkmate. And Channel 4 doesn't realise. And Channel 4 thinks they're already winning. In reality, this is probably Channel 4's Jimmy Savile moment that harmed the reputation of the BBC.
If it can be proven that Channel 4 has used AI to misinform the public and smear Brand, Brand takes Channel 4 to court for defamation and he wins, Channel 4's reputation will be destroyed. From a channel that was set-up to be the alternative to one that attacks the alternative.
They may not have a choice soon. One of the proposals being suggested for a future obesity strategy (because even the Government and pharmaceutical industry do not want customers dying by their middle age of heart attacks and cardiovascular disease) is a mandatory health check-up for all workers and welfare recipients in a similar vein to what is currently implemented in Japan. Fail it and you will be required to obtain a gym membership, diet and exercise to keep your job or benefits.
I am on a tariff that tracks the wholesale price daily. Despite an LNG strike cutting off up to a tenth of the world's supply of LNG, no wind, lower solar output and increased domestic and imported gas usage, the price I am paying for electric and gas tomorrow will be around half of what the average variable customer will pay. Consumers are being humiliated and screwed by the price of energy they're having to pay because of capping of prices.
They will make an example of him. There is a political agenda at play. They will also make an example of a man who keeps his distance from women and someone complains about his misogyny. And the same with someone who faces the prospect of unrequited attention and communication. Can't win.
I'm reading the comments and they are adamant that they don't want a man to pay - they want every man to pay. If such a proposal of a universal bachelor tax goes ahead to transfer wealth from men to women and children, not even MGTOW will be able to escape unless you emigrate. Problem then is that other countries will follow suit.
Both the likes of DeSantis and feminists will eventually push for the idea of men as a collective paying for women and children as a collective via law. In the past it used to be called a "bachelor tax" and generally happened when there was an increase in childlessness and a decrease in marriage. It will be branded as a victory for "gender equality".
I've seen videos and comments of men saying they're lonely in their middle age. They're not the boys in their mothers basement that everyone says they are. I've seen men who consistently worked, touched grass and are physically active whether it's the gym, boxing or martial arts with the receipts to prove it. And yet no partner and no children as they speed into their forties. It's what the manosphere self-help gurus and coaches don't tell you when it comes to male loneliness.
And they plan to do this by erasing men's sport, spaces and identity. While they demand the ban of biological men from the women's category, their solution is to allow biological women into what was formally called the men's category.
They are no more of a friend to men than feminists are.
It's unfortunate this idea is being downvoted because there is a push by both sides of the political spectrum to shut down all avenues of sexual outlets for single men and restrict the act to be defined as two (or more) individuals without payment in a private dwelling. Whether feminist or conservative. The "won't somebody think of the children" aspect of it has always been a tried and true argument from emotion to get something banned. It's happening now with vapes because children could get access (despite age restrictions and ID requirements already in place) and the same will happen to pornography and every other sexual outlet.
Like I say, what happens with all the frustrated men who can't compete in the dating market and have nothing to lose? Will they all be sent into the meat grinder of war?
Except this time their get out of jail card is to claim that the sites voluntarily shut down access in their state and it's not an actual ban. They won't mention the bureaucracy, red tape and impossible requirements they implemented that led to this situation.
Because people believe that restrictive ID laws which abolish anonymity which will stop people using the sites in fear of being hacked and doxxed (a la Ashley Madison). Plus making it impossible to function as a site and remain profitable, effectively banning them in all but name. While also abolishing every other aspect of sexual outlet outside of the bedroom with any act requiring more than one consenting adult without payment to be seen as legal will somehow end the demographic issues we have in society and return society to conservative monogamy, relationships for everyone and the two parent, two child household utopia. It won't. All it will do is drive everything to the dark web or create sexually frustrated single men with nothing to lose considering the current state of the dating market.
The people who should be doing the job are parents, I agree. The state should not be taking over the job of parent and treating us all like children.
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?