Big Food smells blood in the water

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. British speech regulator Ofcom has opened a formal investigation into Telegram under the Online Safety Act, alongside probes into teen chat sites Teen Chat and Chat Avenue. The regulator can levy fines of up to £18 ($24) million or 10% of global revenue, and in the harshest scenarios can ask a court to order UK internet providers to block a service outright. Telegram rejects the premise of the inquiry. In a statement posted on X, the company said: “Telegram categorically denies Ofcom’s accusations. Since 2018, Telegram has virtually eliminated the public spread of CSAM on its platform through world-class detection algorithms and cooperation with NGOs.” The Dubai-based firm added that it was “surprised by this investigation and concerned that it may be part of a broader attack on online platforms that defend freedom of speech and the right to privacy.” Telegram is one of the few large messaging services that still treats private communication as private, with optional end-to-end encryption, and its inclusion on Ofcom’s enforcement list arrives in the context of a law that was sold to the public as a tool against the worst content online, but whose actual scope reaches far wider. The Online Safety Act obliges any user-to-user service “operating” in the UK to assess, mitigate, and document the risk of “illegal content” appearing on the platform. The list of what counts as illegal content runs to dozens of categories. The obligation sits with the platform, the definitions sit with Ofcom, and the penalties sit with whoever the regulator decides has not done enough. Ofcom says the Telegram probe began after “evidence regarding the alleged presence and sharing of CSAM on Telegram, including from our own assessment of the platform, and from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection.” Suzanne Cater, the regulator’s Director of Enforcement, said in the announcement: “These firms must do more to protect children, or face serious consequences under the Online Safety Act.” Nobody sensible argues against removing child sexual abuse material. The disagreement is about method, scope, and who gets power over what else comes with it. Child protection is the justification that consistently accompanies online speech legislation, and the enforcement architecture it authorizes rarely stops at the stated target. The Act’s structure illustrates the point. Telegram is being examined for CSAM-related duties. Teen Chat and Chat Avenue are being examined for grooming risks, with the Chat Avenue probe also covering exposure of children to pornography. But the same compliance machinery, risk assessments, mandated mitigations, hash-matching deployment, and content-detection obligations apply across every category of illegal content the Act names, and several of those categories are far broader than CSAM. “Foreign interference,” “false communications,” incitement offences, and various public-order categories all fall under the same duties. The scanning infrastructure a platform builds to satisfy Ofcom on one category is available for use against all of them. The regulator’s announcement included what it described as good news. The European Commission’s campaign against Elon Musk’s X is similar and has a chronology that tells its own story. It began with algorithms, speech that the Commission disliked, and a fine the company is challenging in court. The child abuse allegation arrived later, attached to an inquiry that was already struggling to land. Read in sequence, the accretion looks more like a regulator looking for evidence it could use. Pixeldrain, a file-sharing service, “made material improvements to its Illegal Content Risk Assessment and implemented perceptual hash matching” after Ofcom raised concerns. Yolobit, another file-sharing service, went in the other direction and simply blocked UK users, at which point Ofcom closed its investigation. Five other file-sharing providers took the same exit route. Yolobit and its five unnamed counterparts are data points. They did not go through a court process. They did not contest a content order. They calculated the cost of compliance against the size of the UK market and chose to geofence the country out. Telegram’s specific complaint, that the investigation may form part of a wider campaign against platforms that protect encrypted communication, is harder to dismiss than British officials would like. The Online Safety Act contains provisions that would, if Ofcom chose to use them, require messaging services to deploy client-side scanning technology capable of examining users’ messages before encryption. The government has said it will not activate those powers until scanning can be done without compromising security. Every independent technical assessment of client-side scanning has concluded that cannot be done. The powers remain on the statute book, unused but usable, and their existence already shapes how encrypted messaging services think about the UK. Telegram was fined in February by Australia’s online safety regulator for delaying answering questions about measures taken to prevent the spread of child abuse and violent extremist material. The case is being cited in some coverage as evidence of a pattern of non-cooperation. A different reading is available. Telegram operates across dozens of jurisdictions and faces demands from regulators with very different legal standards, oversight mechanisms, and political climates. Cooperating reflexively with each one compounds quickly into a posture no privacy-oriented platform can sustain. There is also Pavel Durov, Telegram’s founder, who remains under criminal investigation in France on charges connected to content posted by users of the platform. The prosecution of a platform executive for content his users created is itself a precedent that should trouble anyone who uses the internet. Ofcom’s investigation does not carry criminal exposure for individuals. It does carry the threat of financial penalties severe enough to reshape the platform’s willingness to operate in the UK at all. The final piece of context concerns what Ofcom is permitted to demand once an investigation is open. Under Section 10 powers, the regulator can require detailed information on how a service assesses risk, what automated detection systems it uses, what content it has removed, and what content it has kept. The answers go to Ofcom. They do not go to a court. They do not go to the public. Whether a platform’s moderation decisions were reasonable becomes a matter between the platform and the regulator, with the Act’s enforcement provisions held in reserve if the regulator is unsatisfied. Ofcom said it will “provide an update on this investigation in due course.” How long that takes, and what it produces, will say something about whether the Online Safety Act is the narrowly targeted child protection measure its defenders describe, or the general-purpose speech regulation its architecture actually establishes. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Ofcom Investigates Telegram Under UK “Online Safety Act” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

“A deep space mission of this class has never been done in such a short time frame,” Project Manager Paolo Martino told us.

Even Julius Caesar respected this beast.

On April 14, Resistance activist/grifter Olivia Troye — who has spent years cashing in on her role as a former aide to then-Vice President Mike Pence in the first Trump administration — revealed she would run for Congress in one of Virginia’s now-gerrymandered districts and has a chance of winning, thanks to at least 340 appearances on far-left, elite media cable channels CNN and MS NOW between 2020 and her campaign announcement. Media Research Center analysts searched Nexis transcripts and Snapstream closed captioning using multiple spellings of Troye’s name to chart each and every interview she’s sat for since she quit the administration in the throes of the Covid pandemic to curry public favor as a hero willing to call out a dangerous, deadly presidency. CNN contributed 92 hits to the tally on 29 different shows or specials, including her six combined sightings in 2026 (March 18’s Laura Coates Live) and 2025 (three on Laura Coates Lives, one on The Arena, and one on CNN News Central). Specifically, her lone 2026 appearance (prior to her campaign) was to pile on the Trump administration following Joe Kent’s resignation from the National Counterterrorism Center. In 2025, she weighed in on topics such as the Justice Department (DOJ) raiding John Bolton’s home, DOJ leak investigations, the Epstein files, and what constitutes Republican values. 2022 marked the year Troye most often appeared on CNN with 38 bookings, centering around the Pelosi-picked January 6 Committee hearings. With 11 appearances each, The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and Erin Burnett OutFront tied for first place in which CNN show valued her predicable and vapid anti-Trump commentaries. Numerous iterations of CNN Tonight — both the Don Lemon-helmed editions and those after he left — were just behind at 10. On her third ever CNN appearance (the September 29 New Day), Troye awed co-host John Berman with the declaration that she had been through a “moral struggle” of whether to speak out against Trump because she’s “constantly trying to do the right thing” as “national security professional” and “[s]aving lives is what I’m focused on” by demanding Americans vote Democrat and root for Trump’s imprisonment. Fast-forward to July 2023 and, during a CNN This Morning hit, Troye denounced Republican criticism of the FBI because doing so “erod[es] at the fibers of what our country is based on.” Troye avoided serious criticism on either network. Instead, she was treated like a seasoned stateswoman, including on July 18’s CNN Newsroom where she told then-host Jim Acosta that Kamala Harris’s 2024 Democratic ticket was “democracy in action” despite Harris never having received a single primary vote from the American people. The artist formerly known as MSNBC pulled in the lion’s share of appearances with 248 on 37 different shows and specials. Between 2020 and 2024, Troye appeared on what was then MSNBC no less than 40 times a year with 2021 being the highest at an astounding 69 appearances, which works out to an appearance roughly every five days. Perhaps the least surprising statistic of all was that Nicolle Wallace’s Deadline: White House — which one could refer to as the Rich, White, Liberal, Wine Mom Story Hour — blew all MSNBC shows away as Troye joined Wallace’s show 41 times, followed by Joy Reid’s The ReidOut (36), Velshi (32), Alex Witt Reports/Weekends with Alex Witt (30), and All In with Chris Hayes (26). For an example of her chumminess with Wallace, the host complained to her on the August 19, 2021 Deadline: White House that Republicans are the “gravest terrorist threat” to the country, not any Islamist group like al-Qaeda or ISIS. “I think you nailed it and I think it makes this problem that much more complex and more challenging for our homeland security enterprise,” Troye replied. Over with Reid, Troye insisted on the November 10, 2021 ReidOut that Republicans were poised to rig the 2022 midterms (they didn’t) and Trump voters “don’t care about our democracy, the Constitution, the rule of law,” or their fellow “Americans.” By September 2024, Troye agreed with Reid in predicting a second Trump administration would result in illegal immigration detention centers that, in Reid’s description, “will look like concentration camps in Germany[.]” Troye, along with a number of other former Trump officials or Republicans who became Democrats and even candidates, were at the beck and call of these networks anytime they needed someone who served in the first Trump administration to assert how half the country is a danger to the rest. Her act may work as, while her lobster-shaped district would span from Arlington County to west of I-81, she would never have to leave Falls Church City or Arlington and Fairfax Counties to win or even serve in Congress. Such constituents would be alien to her.

President Donald Trump's pick to overhaul the Federal Reserve has enjoyed support from the commander in chief's allies in the Senate, but one lawmaker just might shut down the nominee's confirmation. Trump nominated Kevin Warsh to chair the Federal Reserve back in January after publicly feuding with current Chair Jerome Powell for failing to cut interest rates and for his multibillion-dollar renovation of the Fed building. Since then, Warsh took the first step of the confirmation process by going to Capitol Hill to testify before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday. 'Political interference or legal intimidation is non-negotiable.'Warsh received glowing reviews from the seven Senate Republicans after his hearing, including from GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who has butted heads with Trump in the past. Despite Tillis' endorsement of Warsh, the retiring senator drew a bold red line for the administration that could cost the confirmation. "Kevin Warsh is a great nominee to be chairman of the Federal Reserve, and I look forward to supporting him out of committee once the DOJ drops their bogus investigation into Chairman Powell that threatens the independence of the Fed," Tillis said in a statement. RELATED: Federal Reserve makes key decision on interest rates — and Trump won't like it Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc./Getty ImagesTillis has repeatedly demanded that the administration suspend its investigation into Powell, even threatening to block nominees he supports, like Warsh. Notably, the Senate Banking Committee is composed of seven Republicans and six Democrats, meaning Tillis' vote is necessary to advance Warsh's nomination assuming the vote falls along party lines. "The Department of Justice continues to pursue a criminal investigation into Chairman Jerome Powell based on committee testimony that no reasonable person could construe as possessing criminal intent," Tillis said following Warsh's nomination in January. "Protecting the independence of the Federal Reserve from political interference or legal intimidation is non-negotiable.""My position has not changed: I will oppose the confirmation of any Federal Reserve nominee, including for the position of Chairman, until the DOJ’s inquiry into Chairman Powell is fully and transparently resolved."One viable "off-ramp" that has been floated by Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who chairs the committee, is to create a subcommittee to investigate and oversee the Federal Reserve's over-budget construction. This would, in effect, replace the Department of Justice's criminal probe into Powell but still allow the administration and its allies to investigate the Fed.It's unclear whether the DOJ would drop the investigation, but Tillis expressed enthusiasm about the potential resolution. “I not only think it’s a good off-ramp, but I also think it’s good governance,” Tillis said.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Charlottesville, Virginia, became a flash point as tensions grew in August 2017 over the fate of American monuments that liberals deemed too racist to leave standing in public spaces. A hodgepodge of protesters and counterprotesters — which included radical leftists, those opposed to removing Confederate statues, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists — descended on the city ahead of the so-called Unite the Right rally on Aug. 12.Agitators helped ensure that the event went sideways.'Trigger the violence because you can't stop the legitimate speech.'Following a series of skirmishes between various factions, one demonstrator drove his car into a crowd of counterprotesters, injuring over 30 and killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer.According to the grand jury indictment filed against the Southern Poverty Law Center on Tuesday, this bloody and tragic event — which the American left politically exploited for years and former President Joe Biden cited as his reason for running in 2020 — was the product, in part, of liberal machinations.The indictment accuses the SPLC — a liberal outfit whose bread and butter is smearing law-abiding conservatives as "extremists" — of funneling millions of dollars to the very extremist groups it claimed to be fighting.RELATED: Oath Keepers, Proud Boys feel hopeful and skeptical after Trump DOJ’s moves to end Biden-era witch hunt Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto/Getty ImagesIn addition to allegedly bankrolling leaders and organizers in the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, the National Socialist Party of America, and the National Alliance, the SPLC allegedly "had a field source who was a member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 'Unite the Right' event," according to the indictment.This field source, who is not named in the indictment, allegedly made "racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees."For their contributions to the cause, this field source was allegedly paid over $270,000 by the SPLC in secret between 2015 and 2023.The SPLC did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.While its insider was allegedly setting the stage for the rally, the SPLC worked feverishly to emphasize the importance of the planned event, noting in an Aug. 7, 2017, Hatewatch post, for example, that "the event may well become a seminal point for the Alt-Right and the extremist hate fringe: It’s a bold move beyond the anonymity of web sites, message boards, pseudonyms and social media — a move to take the hardcore, racist, white nationalist message to the public square."In the same post, the SPLC hyped the possibility of violence at the "'summer of hate' gathering of racist extremists from all corners of the country," noting that "the looming social chemistry on a hot summer weekend ... seems to point to the clear possibility of violence."The bloodletting in Charlottesville proved to be a windfall for the SPLC.Days after the event, Apple CEO Tim Cook stated that "hate is a cancer and left unchecked it destroys everything in its path." Seeking to "help organizations who work to rid our country of hate," Cook announced that his company was making a $1 million contribution to the SPLC.Soon thereafter, JP Morgan Chase & Co. pledged half a million to the SPLC, and George and Amal Clooney announced that they were dumping $1 million into SPLC to help it highlight the imagined dangers of white-supremacist ideology.The Clooneys said in a statement at the time, "What happened in Charlottesville, and what is happening in communities across our country, demands our collective engagement to stand up to hate."According to the indictment against the SPLC announced by the Justice Department on Tuesday, such donations collected from deep-pocketed liberals "under the auspices that the funds would be used to 'dismantle' violent extremist groups ... was, instead, being used, in part, by the SPLC to pay leaders and others within these same violent extremist groups."The SPLC allegedly poured over $3 million in such funds to field sources associated with violent extremist groups between 2014 and 2023. These money transfers were allegedly made through a series of bank accounts created in the name of fictional entities, including the Center Investigative Agency, Fox Photography, North West Technologies, and Rare Books Warehouse. The revelation that an SPLC plant might have been involved in the Unite the Right rally would help explain why the organization was so desperate to attack the notion that the event was a "false flag" from the start.In the immediate aftermath of the violent rally, Alex Jones reportedly accused the SPLC of hiring actors to dress up like racists and prompt a crackdown by police on the rally's legitimate attendees."That's the plan," Jones said. "Trigger the violence because you can't stop the legitimate speech."Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar (R) was among the others who similarly suspected something was fishy, telling Vice News in October 2017 that the rally was likely "created by the left."The SPLC insisted that claims that the event was a "false flag" operation or that leftist infiltrators were among its organizers — Jason Kessler, the event's primary organizer, was previously an Obama-supporting Occupy protester — were ludicrous "conspiracy theories" that served only to demonstrate "the strength of the link between the conspiratorial extreme right (Jones, Infowars, Gateway Pundit, etc) and the racist 'alt-right.'"Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The scurrilous left-wing group had to pay for racism to meet demand. But the criminal case may not stick.

'Are You Really This Dumb?' Dem Rep. Dan Goldman's SPLC Defense Is Getting Ratioed Into the Sun

Flashback: The SPLC Has Been Scummy for a Long Time