If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The UK government has taken another aggressive step in its campaign to regulate online speech, launching formal investigations into the message board 4chan and seven file-sharing sites under its far-reaching Online Safety Act. But this is more than a domestic crackdown; it is a clear attempt to assert British speech laws far beyond its borders, targeting platforms that have no meaningful presence in the UK. The law, which came into full force in April, gives sweeping powers to Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, to demand that websites and apps proactively remove undefined categories of “illegal content.” Failure to comply can trigger massive fines of up to £18 million ($24M) or 10 percent of global revenue, criminal penalties for company executives, and site-wide bans within the UK. Now, Ofcom has set its sights on 4chan, a US-hosted imageboard owned by a Japanese national. The site operates under US law and has no physical infrastructure, employees, or legal registration in Britain. Nonetheless, UK regulators have declared it fair game. “Wherever in the world a service is based if it has ‘links to the UK’, it now has duties to protect UK users,” Ofcom insists. More: UK Tries To Wield Censorship Laws Globally, Clashing with Gab and Kiwi Farms over Free Speech and Jurisdiction That phrase, “links to the UK,” is intentionally vague and extraordinarily expensive, allowing British authorities to demand compliance from virtually any website. This kind of extraterritorial overreach marks a direct threat to the principle of national sovereignty in internet governance. The UK is attempting to dictate the rules of online speech to foreign companies, hosted on foreign servers, and serving users in other countries, all because someone in Britain might visit their site. According to Ofcom, 4chan failed to respond to its “statutory information requests,” making it one of nine services now under formal investigation. What this law actually does is push platforms, especially smaller or independent ones, out of the UK entirely. Already, popular free speech platforms like Gab, BitChute, and Kiwi Farms have blocked UK access, citing the chilling effects of the Online Safety Act. Rather than making the internet safer, the law is creating a digital iron curtain around the UK, where only government-approved content and services remain accessible. 4chan, long a lightning rod for unfiltered speech and internet culture, has no shortage of detractors. But the platform’s commitment to anonymity and free expression has also made it one of the last places online where users can post without algorithmic throttling or corporate moderation. It is routinely blamed for hosting “offensive” memes, and conspiracies, yet in nearly every case, the speech in question would be protected under US First Amendment standards. Rather than respecting these legal differences, the UK is attempting to export its more restrictive model of speech regulation to the rest of the world. The aim is clear: if a platform cannot or will not bend to Ofcom’s demands, it will be blacklisted from the UK internet. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Britain Launches Cross-Border Censorship Hunt Against 4chan appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A Liberal Party senator is pushing for a legislative comeback of a contentious online speech bill that once stalled in Parliament, opening the door to renewed debates over censorship and state control of digital platforms in Canada. Senator Kristopher Wells, who joined the Senate in 2024 following an appointment by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has voiced support for reviving Bill C-63. The proposed law, formally titled the Online Harms Act, failed to advance before the most recent federal election brought the last session of Parliament to an end. Now, with Mark Carney leading a Liberal government that has pledged to stay the course on Trudeau’s legislative agenda, the bill may be poised for resurrection. Speaking in the Senate, Wells referenced the shelved bill, saying, “In the last Parliament, the government proposed important changes to the Criminal Code of Canada designed to strengthen penalties for hate crime offenses.” Billed as a child protection initiative, Bill C-63 faced backlash for bundling that goal with provisions that would allow state regulators to target online content the government deemed offensive or hateful, a term left ill-defined in the text. Rather than limiting itself to illegal speech, the bill sought to penalize material “likely to foment detestation or vilification” based on characteristics like race, religion, and gender. The Canadian Human Rights Commission would have been responsible for handling complaints, a move that alarmed many observers who viewed the measure as a means to bypass due process. Although it never made it to a final vote, Wells insisted the bill’s intentions were sound. “I believe Canada must get tougher on hate and send a clear and unequivocal message that hate and extremism will never be tolerated in this country no matter who it targets,” he said. Wells questioned whether the current Carney-led government intended to reintroduce legislation modeled on Bill C-63 and whether it would work “with interested senators and community stakeholders to make the changes needed to ensure this important legislation is passed.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The Censorship Bill That Wouldn’t Die Returns to Haunt Canadians appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A controversial digital identity venture backed by OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman is preparing to establish a physical presence in the United Kingdom, starting with London on June 12, 2025. Worldcoin, the biometric-based project that was already launched in the US, is now setting its sights on a nationwide rollout across the UK. The project introduces Orbs; metallic devices designed to scan an individual’s iris to generate a unique digital ID, known as a World ID. These biometric credentials are marketed as a way to verify humanness in a world increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence. Worldcoin recently introduced an upgraded system called World ID 2.0, expanding beyond iris scans to include selfie-based verification and other digital identity tools. The project’s UK debut begins with installations in London, then expands to Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff, Belfast, and Glasgow. Initial placements will target high-footfall areas like shopping centers and retail districts. The company recently moved to strengthen its digital ID infrastructure through the acquisition of Ottr Wallet, signaling its push toward deeper integration. Simultaneously, Worldcoin is aligning itself with major financial service providers including Stripe and Visa, laying the groundwork for embedding biometric identity into everyday services such as transit, payments, and emergency systems. Those who choose to undergo the biometric scan receive a cryptocurrency token called Worldcoin (WLD) in return. That token, which has seen sharp fluctuations, notably jumped by over 28 percent in a single week during the last quarter of 2024. The initiative arrives at a moment of growing concern over the role of biometrics in public life. As the line between surveillance and convenience blurs, Worldcoin’s expansion is likely to reignite debates about the commodification of identity, the ethics of incentivized data collection, and the long-term consequences of embedding biometric infrastructure into public and private sectors. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Sam Altman’s Eye-Scanning Empire Touches Down in London appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A draft statutory instrument titled The Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025 has been introduced to the UK Parliament, aiming to operationalize a new “super-complaints” mechanism under the UK’s expansive Online Safety Act. We obtained a copy of the draft for you here. This mechanism sets up a process through which select organizations can formally raise concerns about systemic harms or provider conduct across digital platforms. Beneath the language of user protection, however, the framework codifies yet another channel for state-endorsed gatekeeping of online discourse. Under these regulations, entities such as civil society groups recognized for their expertise in online safety may qualify to file a complaint with Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator. These “eligible entities” will be permitted to submit complaints no more than once every six months, barring certain exceptions. The matters they can raise include not just tangible harms, but also content or conduct that appears to pose “a material risk” of causing “significant harm.” Though framed as a tool for accountability, the structure hinges on a tightly controlled process. Complaints must meet detailed evidentiary requirements and will be screened for admissibility by Ofcom, which has the discretion to reject submissions it deems repetitive, unfounded, or overlapping with court proceedings or matters under other regulators’ purview. The eligibility criteria themselves have been loosened slightly after public consultation. Organizations without a lengthy track record but with subject-matter knowledge can now qualify, and funding links to tech companies are no longer an automatic disqualification. Despite these concessions, the regime remains exclusionary by design, with barriers that may discourage grassroots or under-resourced entities from engaging at all. Yet the practical consequence of this entire initiative may be to centralize and bureaucratize concerns about “harm” into a narrow, institutionally filtered channel. Rather than empowering users or upholding genuine pluralism, it risks sidelining spontaneous and decentralized expression in favor of formalized, regulator-approved pathways, a hallmark of systems that prize managed speech over real freedom. While officials insist that this framework enhances transparency and responsiveness, its very existence underscores a broader shift: from a presumption of open discourse to a presumption of regulated acceptability. And in that shift, the space for dissent continues to contract. Key Proposals 1. Eligibility to Submit a Super-Complaint To qualify as an “eligible entity,” an organization must: Represent users of online services or the public. Have independent governance (not unduly influenced by the services it may complain about). Be an expert contributor to public discussions on online safety. Be committed to following OFCOM’s published guidance. 2. Evidence Required for Eligibility Entities must provide: Proof of their representational role. Governance details showing independence. Examples of significant contributions to online safety debates. For repeat complainants, a simple statement of no changes can replace full re-submission of documentation (valid for 5 years). 3. Contents of a Super-Complaint A valid complaint must: Be in writing. Name a contact person. Specify which service(s) or provider(s) it targets. Identify which legal ground(s) it’s based on (harms to users, systemic risks, etc.). Include objective, current, and verifiable evidence. Explain relevance, significance, or scope of the harm (especially if it concerns only one service). 4. Grounds for Rejection OFCOM must or may reject complaints that: Come from ineligible entities. Are not based on legal grounds. Repeat earlier complaints without significant changes. Are incomplete or lacking evidence. Involve matters already under court or regulatory review. Are submitted within 6 months of a prior complaint (with some exceptions). 5. Time Limits and Procedures OFCOM has 30 days (or 15 if the entity was previously verified) to determine eligibility. Once verified, OFCOM has 90 days to assess the complaint, extendable if more information is needed. OFCOM must publicly summarize both the complaint and its response. 6. Complaint Withdrawal Entities can withdraw a complaint, unless OFCOM has already responded to it. 7. Submission Restrictions Entities generally must wait 6 months between complaints, unless replacing a withdrawn complaint or if previous rejections were due to external legal processes that have since ended. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Ofcom’s “Super-Complaint” Plan Puts UK Speech on Notice appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. This content is available exclusively to supporters of Reclaim The Net Subscribe for premier reporting on free speech, privacy, Big Tech, media gatekeepers and individual liberty online.   Subscribe   Already a supporter? Login here.                       If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The Federal Data Dragnet Just Got an Upgrade appeared first on Reclaim The Net.