If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to rehear NetChoice v. Bonta, leaving intact its earlier decision that upheld most of California’s new social media law, Senate Bill 976, also known as the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act. NetChoice, the tech trade group behind the challenge, said it “will explore all available options to protect free speech and privacy online” after the denial of its petition for rehearing on November 6, 2025. Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 976 into law in September 2024. The legislation compels social media platforms to implement “age assurance” measures to identify whether users are adults or minors. This would likely mean platforms have to introduce some form of digital ID check to allow people to view or post. Those requirements are not yet active, as California’s Attorney General has until January 1, 2027, to finalize the specific rules. Attorney General Rob Bonta began the initial rulemaking process in October 2025. NetChoice first sued in November 2024, arguing that SB 976 forces Californians to hand over personal documents just to engage in lawful online speech, a demand the group says violates the First Amendment. On September 9, 2025, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel mostly upheld the law, finding that it was too soon to determine whether the age assurance mandate would restrict free expression before the details of that process are set. As a result, the Attorney General can continue developing the state’s age assurance framework, while NetChoice or other organizations may bring a new legal challenge once the regulations are issued. In its prior decision, the Ninth Circuit also removed one element of the law requiring children’s accounts to automatically hide likes and comments. Writing for the court, Judge Ryan Nelson concluded that the rule “is not the least restrictive way to advance California’s interest in protecting minors’ mental health.” The rest of SB 976, including its age verification and content feed restrictions, remains largely intact. The panel emphasized that without finalized regulations, it cannot yet decide whether these requirements would suppress lawful speech or create privacy risks. NetChoice has continued to warn that the statute grants the state too much power over how people access and share information online. “NetChoice is largely disappointed in the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and we will consider all available avenues to defend the First Amendment,” said Paul Taske, Co-Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. He added, “California’s law usurps the role of parents and gives the government more power over how legal speech is shared online. By mandating mass collection of sensitive data from adults and minors, it will undermine the security and privacy of families, putting them at risk of cybercrime such as identity theft.” The group argues that the law effectively turns digital platforms into data collection systems for the state, compelling verification of user identities and eroding the privacy protections that individuals rely on to communicate freely. For now, California’s rulemaking continues, with the state set to define exactly how “age assurance” will work and with privacy and free expression advocates closely watching what happens next. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Court Keeps California’s Online ID Law Dream Alive appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

For years, the internet was treated like an uncontrollable wildfire, a messy, democratic playground where power didn’t quite know what to do with itself. Now it is being rebuilt into something far more manageable. Governments that once threw up their hands at the chaos of online life have realized they can control it after all, provided they hide the hand that is doing the shaping. Become a Member and Keep Reading… Reclaim your digital freedom. Get the latest on censorship, cancel culture, and surveillance, and learn how to fight back. Join Already a supporter? Sign In. (If you’re already logged in but still seeing this, refresh this page to show the post.) The post VPNs Keep the Lights On in a Darkening Web appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Joey Barton, the former Premier League midfielder turned online commentator, has been convicted by a Liverpool jury of six counts of sending “grossly offensive electronic communications with intent to cause distress or anxiety.” The case, just one in the many free speech cases in the UK these days, focused on a series of social media posts Barton made in early 2024, targeting television host Jeremy Vine and football pundits Lucy Ward and Eni Aluko. Prosecutors argued that his posts were deliberate communications intended to upset and degrade. After a televised FA Cup game in January, Barton compared Ward and Aluko to convicted serial killers Fred and Rose West, and posted a doctored image with their faces superimposed onto those of the notorious couple. He also accused Aluko of having “murdered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of football fans’ ears,” likened her to Stalin and Pol Pot, and claimed she was only employed “to tick boxes,” calling DEI “a load of shit” and linking her role in football commentary to “BLM/George Floyd nonsense.” He also made comments about broadcaster Jeremy Vine. After Vine asked whether Barton had suffered a brain injury, Barton responded by calling him “bike nonce,” and asked if he had been to Epstein’s island. (The term “nonce” is a British slang term for pedophile.) One post read, “Might as well own up now because I’d phone the police if I saw you near a primary school on ya bike.” Barton denied that the messages were meant to cause distress. In court, he described the posts as “dark and stupid humor,” claiming he had been attempting to make serious points in a provocative way. He said the phrase “bike nonce” was part of an inside joke among people who don’t cycle, not an actual accusation of child abuse. More: Graham Linehan Arrested by Armed Police Over X Posts as UK Free Speech Crisis Deepens He further described the prosecution as politically motivated, accusing the state of trying to silence voices that challenge dominant narratives. The jury convicted Barton on six counts but found him not guilty on another six, which related to different social media posts earlier in the year. Sentencing is expected at a later date. Prosecutor Peter Wright KC told the jury that Barton’s online conduct went far beyond what society should accept. “Mr. Barton is not the victim here,” he alleged. “He is not the free speech crusader that he would like to paint himself to be…He is just simply an undiluted, unapologetic bully. A little bully who takes pleasure sitting there with his phone in his hand and then posting these slurs.” He added that Ward, Aluko, and Vine were “collateral damage of his self-promotion.” Defending Barton, Simon Csoka KC urged the jury to reflect carefully on the legal and societal implications of criminalizing offensive speech. “If the boundary is set far too low,” Csoka said, “then free speech is completely worthless.” He acknowledged that Barton’s words were likely to offend, but argued that this alone should not be grounds for a criminal conviction in a democracy that values open debate. Barton’s conviction for posting “grossly offensive” comments online should worry anyone who still believes in free speech. Britain’s courts have now decided that being offensive on the internet can land you in the dock, and that should chill every citizen who values the right to speak freely. Criminalizing words because they hurt feelings is a dangerous precedent. The right to free expression only matters when it protects speech that others dislike. Easy, polite speech needs no defense. What matters is protecting the rough, unpopular, even stupid opinions that test the limits of public tolerance. If Barton had genuinely harassed someone, the law already provides clear remedies. But he was not convicted of harassment or libel. He was charged with being “grossly offensive.” That phrase is elastic, subjective, and dependent entirely on the listener’s reaction. Today it applies to Joey Barton; tomorrow it could apply to anyone who makes a joke, shares a meme, or criticizes a powerful institution or public figure in the wrong tone. Britain increasingly punishes expression on the basis of offense, not intent or harm. Police have investigated people for jokes, song lyrics, and even social media posts taken out of context. The Barton ruling adds another brick to that wall of censorship. A society that cannot tolerate offensive words is not protecting its citizens; it is infantilizing them. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Joey Barton and the New Heresy of Being Offensive In The UK appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Governments around the world are steadily advancing their digital identity programs, presenting them as tools for convenience, security, and modernization across daily life. Australia has now taken another step in that direction, trialing a new digital ID system in the rental sector while also preparing to introduce nationwide online age verification requirements by the end of this year. Both systems rely on identity verification and could eventually become interconnected. The new federal pilot will allow tenants to confirm their identity and financial information online rather than repeatedly providing hard copies of personal documents such as passports, driver’s licenses, or bank statements to multiple real estate agents. Announced by Finance Minister Katy Gallagher and Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil, the trial is intended to test whether digital ID technology can streamline rental applications while reducing the privacy and security risks that come with traditional document sharing. Led by the Department of Finance and the Treasury, the project combines the government’s Digital ID system with the Consumer Data Right (CDR) framework. PropertyMe, one of Australia’s largest property management software providers, will oversee the trial in partnership with ConnectID, developed by Australian Payments Plus, and Cuscal, a payments and data services company. Together, they aim to see how digital verification can simplify renting while offering stronger protection for personal data. “Right now, renters are asked to upload anything from driver licenses and passports to bank statements and payslips, often to several platforms,” said Scott Shepherd, PropertyMe’s Chief Product Officer. “Products and services now exist that enable us to reimagine that. Renters should be able to prove who they are and their ability to pay rent, without handing over additional information.” REA Group senior economist Eleanor Creagh supported the pilot’s potential benefits, saying, “The pilot is a sensible reform that may help cut red tape for renters while strengthening data security and transparency in rental applications.” With the upcoming rollout of age verification laws expected to require proof of identity to access certain online services, there is concern that Australia’s digital infrastructure could gradually merge into a single, far-reaching identity framework. Such a system could allow both public and private entities to authenticate users across multiple sectors, raising questions about how much control individuals will retain over their data and who will have access to it. Globally, similar moves are underway in countries such as the UK, Canada, the EU, Singapore, where governments are promoting digital identity systems as a way to verify citizens online. The more these systems link together, the greater the risk of centralization, surveillance, and misuse of personal information. If the rental pilot succeeds, it could mark the beginning of a broader digital identity framework spanning multiple aspects of daily life. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Australia Turns the Rental Market into a Digital ID Testing Ground appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Tinder has become the latest major platform to reach further into users’ personal data, using artificial intelligence as its justification. After nine consecutive quarters of falling subscriber numbers, the dating app’s parent company, Match Group, is testing a new system called Chemistry. The tool is designed to learn about users through questions and, if permitted, by scanning images stored in their phone’s Camera Roll to interpret interests and personality traits. Match says this data-driven approach will improve compatibility between users. The pilot is currently taking place in New Zealand and Australia, and CEO Spencer Rascoff has described it as “a major pillar of Tinder’s upcoming 2026 product experience.” The plan raises growing concerns about how far companies will go in asking for access to private information under the guise of personalization. Match is not the only company following this path. Meta recently launched an AI feature that scans phone photos that people have never uploaded, offering to make editing suggestions. In both cases, users are being asked to trust large corporations with intimate, locally stored data that goes well beyond what is necessary for normal app use. The benefits offered in exchange for this access are minimal, while the privacy risks are considerable. Match claims its system will use AI to create better matches by interpreting visual clues and user responses. While the company presents this as a positive experience, it depends on giving an app direct access to personal files that were never meant for data analysis. Match has already acknowledged that this experiment comes at a financial cost. Tinder’s use of AI extends further. It now employs a language model to prompt users with “Are you sure?” before they send potentially “offensive” messages. Another system suggests which profile photos might attract more attention. Alongside these AI efforts, Tinder has added new engagement tools such as themed dating modes, group dates, facial verification, and redesigned profiles that highlight bio information and prompts more prominently. Despite these updates, Tinder continues to face declining engagement as many younger people move toward meeting in person instead of online. Others are becoming more cautious about how their personal data is used, especially when companies demand expanded access to private storage. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Tinder Wants Your Camera Roll and Calls It Chemistry appeared first on Reclaim The Net.