If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. British Twitch users are waking up to a new form of surveillance disguised as “safety.” The platform, owned by Amazon, has begun enforcing a requirement that forces viewers to undergo facial recognition scans before accessing mature-rated streams in the United Kingdom. The change, made to satisfy the UK’s controversial Online Safety Act, effectively links biometric identification to entertainment and sets a precedent that privacy advocates have long warned could normalize state-aligned digital tracking. The rollout marks the most invasive version of age verification yet seen on a major streaming service. Rather than asking for confirmation of birth date or a one-time ID check, Twitch now demands a live scan of each user’s face through an app-integrated tool. Without it, entire categories of content are blocked. Facial recognition triggers automatically at three moments: when someone creates a new account, when existing members log in after the update, and when users attempt to watch any stream labeled with restricted material. The flagged categories include depictions of sex, drugs, intoxication, gambling, smoking, and violence. Even though no one under 13 can legally create a Twitch account, the new rules extend surveillance to all ages, forcing adults to prove their identity for the sake of watching routine content. Emails sent to UK users describe this as a verification step for “content that may not be suitable for everyone.” It means millions of viewers must now surrender their biometric data simply to browse the same site they used freely a week ago. Many users see the policy as a test case for broader biometric policing of the web. The UK government insists the Online Safety Act is about protecting children, but the Act’s design makes no distinction between protecting minors and monitoring adults. It empowers platforms to collect personal identifiers at scale, pushing private companies into the role of digital gatekeepers. Such systems do not come without risk. Discord’s earlier attempt at facial verification ended in disaster when a breach exposed the identity documents of roughly 70,000 users, including passports and driver’s licenses. That failure revealed a basic truth: biometric databases are not secure simply because they are built for “safety.” Twitch has outsourced its own facial recognition process to a third-party provider, mirroring the same approach that failed elsewhere. Once the scans are uploaded, users have no real control over where their faces are stored, how long they are kept, or whether they could be repurposed in the future. The Online Safety Act is facing a growing backlash. A parliamentary petition calling for its repeal has now reached the debate stage. The law creates an infrastructure for censorship under the banner of child protection. Adding to the turmoil, the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, has floated new rules that would prohibit under-18 streamers from earning money on Twitch at all. The proposal would block income from donations, subscriptions, or any other form of monetization, while disabling commenting, gifting, and recording during streams that feature minors. But for thousands of young creators, the result would be economic exclusion. Many teenage streamers rely on their earnings to help their families or fund their education. Under these proposed guidelines, they would either have to abandon Twitch entirely or seek platforms outside the UK’s jurisdiction. Twitch has yet to confirm which games will trigger these new restrictions, leaving both streamers and viewers uncertain. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Twitch Imposes Face Scans for UK Users to Comply with Government’s Censorship Law appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. In most small towns, a Facebook meme gets you an eye roll, maybe an unfriending, but not a criminal charge. Hood County, Texas, is proving to be an exception. On November 5, Navy veteran and local media figure Kolton Krottinger was arrested and charged with a third-degree felony after posting what he thought was a harmless piece of satire. The meme poked fun at two familiar names in Granbury politics, activist Tina Brown and former school board candidate Monica Brown, by pretending that Tina supported the candidate she very much does not. To the regulars of the Facebook group “Hood County Sheepdogs,” it was just another inside joke. According to Sarah Fields, a Republican precinct chair who knows both women, “it was an obviously satirical meme to the local audience, who knew that Tina ‘Karen’ Brown has no love for the former Granbury ISD school board candidate, Monica Brown.” Source: Sarah Fields But Tina Brown didn’t see the humor. She told the sheriff’s office the meme made it look like she endorsed a candidate she openly opposed. Within a week, Krottinger found himself charged under Texas Penal Code 33.07, a law meant to stop people from using someone’s identity online to “harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten.” For Krottinger, the arrest was a shock. “I never imagined that exercising my right to free speech…something I swore to defend could land me in handcuffs,” he wrote on X. His attorney, C.J. Grisham, did not mince words either. “It’s crazy that you can share a meme in the United States of America, where the First Amendment reigns supreme in our judicial system, and be thrown in jail and charged with a felony that could potentially ruin your entire life,” he said. He added, “Yeah, it was to poke fun at the two people who can’t stand each other… That’s the joke of it.” Grisham believes the case is politically motivated and warns it could have a chilling effect on local speech, a concern that seems less theoretical by the day. Sheriff Roger Deeds has stood firmly by the decision to investigate. In a public statement, he encouraged residents to report social media content they consider harmful, saying his department “will investigate to the fullest extent of the law.” He acknowledged that “much of what is posted online is protected by the 1st Amendment,” but added that certain actions “may sometimes constitute a criminal offense.” Krottinger, who runs the local news page “Hood County Breaking News” and operates a ranch that supports veterans and first responders, says the experience has been humbling. After the court initially restricted his access to social media, a judge later restored it. “It feels good…really good to finally be able to post again,” he wrote afterward. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The Facebook Joke That Put a Veteran in Handcuffs appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. You’d think that when a police force storms into a family home, arrests two parents in front of their child because of WhatsApp messages, and later admits they had no legal grounds to do so, the next logical step would be to apologize. A basic human gesture. “Sorry we got it wrong. Sorry we embarrassed you. Sorry we scared your kid.” That sort of thing. But Hertfordshire Constabulary in the UK, having now paid out £20,000 ($26,000) to Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine after unlawfully arresting them, appears to have skipped that part. Not a word of apology. Not even one of those sterile, press-release apologies full of vague regret and zero responsibility. Just a quiet settlement and the hope, presumably, that everyone will move on. This is the second payout the couple has received for the same incident. The arrests took place in January after a private WhatsApp message about their daughter’s school was treated as a police matter. There were no threats; just a personal comment, in a closed conversation, that someone at the school didn’t like. Apparently, that was enough. Allen, a Times Radio producer, described the moment the settlement came through. “It would be an exaggeration to say I burst into tears, but I did weep,” he said. “They have admitted wrongful arrest, admitted unlawful arrest, and they’ve agreed to pay us damages. We’re really pleased that they’ve recognized that this was the wrong thing to do.” All of that is important. But it’s not an apology. Levine, a television producer, said she was glad the ordeal had concluded and hoped the case might stop this from happening to others. “However, I fear that we won’t be the last,” she added. And who could blame her. The money helps, yes, but it doesn’t change the fact that the police showed up like it was a crime scene when in reality it was a frustrated parent tapping on a phone. And this wasn’t a safeguarding emergency. It was a disagreement over support for their disabled daughter with epilepsy. The parents had been in regular contact with Cowley Primary School, questioning what they saw as inadequate care. In return, the school took issue with the volume and tone of those concerns, flagged a private message as malicious, and brought in the police. Allen put it bluntly. “The police should not be a tool for public authorities to close down legitimate comment and scrutiny.” But right now, that is precisely how they are being used. Schools and local authorities are increasingly passing awkward conversations to the police, hoping for quick, intimidating solutions. And far too often, the police go along with it. There is a wider problem here. In the UK, speech, even in private, is being treated with suspicion. Disagreements are being classified as threats. A WhatsApp message from a parent becomes a police matter, not because it poses danger, but because someone finds it inconvenient. It is not just about the money. It is about the message this sends. If authorities can quietly pay out for arrests that should never have happened, without acknowledging the damage they caused, the system learns nothing. The people affected are left with compensation, yes, but also with the knowledge that the institutions that wronged them still believe they owe no explanation. This story was never about one couple and a WhatsApp message. It is about the line between ordinary speech and police power, and how fragile that line has become. It should not be this easy to cross it. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UK: Hertfordshire Police Pay £20,000 for Unlawful Arrests Over Parents’ WhatsApp Message appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. French authorities have lifted the travel ban that had confined Telegram founder Pavel Durov to France for more than a year. The restriction, imposed after his arrest in Paris last August, had prevented him from leaving the country while prosecutors pursued charges tied not to his own actions but to what users on his platform were allegedly doing. The order, signed on Monday, and reported by Bloomberg, also cancels the obligation for Durov to report regularly to a local police station. The decision restores his freedom of movement, though the investigation into Telegram itself continues. Prosecutors have not clarified why the head of a communications service is being held legally responsible for user activity, an approach that raises questions about how far governments are willing to go in policing online speech. According to France’s Prosecutor’s Office, Durov faces preliminary charges for “facilitating a platform that enables illicit transactions.” If convicted, he could face up to ten years in prison and a fine of roughly $550,000. Telegram and Durov have rejected the accusations, emphasizing that the company follows European Union laws and works with authorities when required by legal process. The French government’s decision to detain and restrict the movements of a platform founder because of user content marks a major change in how states treat digital communication. Rather than pursuing those who commit crimes online, prosecutors are increasingly targeting those who build the tools that enable private exchange. Durov has been outspoken about this shift. In an interview with Le Point in June, he said, “Emmanuel Macron isn’t making the right choices. I’m very disappointed. France is getting weaker and weaker.” He has also warned that European initiatives such as the EU’s “Chat Control” proposal would create a surveillance system disguised as child protection. “Germany is persecuting anyone who dares to criticize officials on the Internet. The UK is imprisoning thousands for their tweets. France is criminally investigating tech leaders who defend freedom and privacy,” Durov wrote on X. While Durov is now free to travel, the larger issue remains unresolved. His situation has become a test of whether European democracies still recognize that defending free speech means protecting not only those who speak, but also those who provide the means for them to do so. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post France’s Censors Release Their Favorite Captive appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Players of the Japanese mobile RPG Twinkle Star Knights have recently discovered that their favorite characters have become faceless silhouettes on iOS after Apple refused to approve several pieces of artwork it considered “potentially offensive to some users.” To avoid being pulled from the App Store, the developers decided to cover the affected illustrations in black, leaving large portions of the cast as shadow figures. The dispute began in August when an update for the fantasy-themed gacha game repeatedly failed Apple’s review process. Apple flagged specific animations and illustrations, later suggesting that even artwork from the game’s 2023 launch might also need to be altered. The publisher apologized to iPhone players and attempted to keep the game accessible by releasing a temporary cloud version while it adjusted the art. That effort failed as well. Even after redesigning many female characters, Apple again declared the game to be “in violation of guidelines.” After more than two months of revisions and rejections, the developers settled on an unusual solution. Artwork that passed Apple’s checks remains visible, while everything still being reviewed appears only as black silhouettes. This fix allowed the game to remain downloadable, even though much of its once-vivid cast now appears obscured. Such a step is uncommon in mobile gaming and has raised concern among players who see it as evidence of how platform owners can quietly steer creative content. Apple’s broad interpretation of what might offend has long been a source of tension for developers seeking artistic freedom. For the moment, Twinkle Star Knights is still available on both the App Store and Google Play, but the iOS version stands as a literal and symbolic reminder of how easily expression can be dimmed when gatekeepers control the light. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Apple Censorship Forces Japanese Game to Hide Characters appeared first on Reclaim The Net.