The Online Safety Bill

I was in the middle of completing a different article on what the future holds, per official documents, but on my way to the World Council of Health event with Peter McCullough and Tess Lawrie in Bath, UK yesterday, I heard that the Online Safety Bill had passed in parliament.

And that certainly deserves attention. Because it’s simply not good enough to identify the faults of yesterday, if the sustainable train is still moving at high speed towards our western development. The goal here should be to stop that train.

-

A while back, I wrote this substack article, detailing how the censorship initiative can be tracked going from various parliaments, through a WEF-studded Transatlantic Working Group - only to end up with yet another covert United Nations initiative, and its working groups.

Without going into too much detail, my trail ended here - with an initiative, setup in collaboration between the International Telecommunication Union and the United Nations, specifically, the Broadband Commission.

One thing I forgot to do in that article, was to show the overlap wrt the contributors of their two major reports; the light-weight ‘Working Group on Child Online Safety‘, and the more onerous ‘Working Group on Freedom of Expression and Addressing Disinformation‘

An interesting bit is that of the 8 new working group members (replacing largely corporate contributors), 5 work in public capacity. Yet, they thought ‘safety’ meant going expressly against the cornerstone of Western democracy?

But there are a couple of interesting names, and in this, I will include those included in the acknowledgements.

The first is Robert Kirkpatrick. He works - or, worked, rather - for the UN Global Pulse, who are busy ‘innovating together for our common future’.

And what do they innovate, you ask? Well one is the UN Transformation, the Quintet of Change… oh wait, I heard of that before. Yeah, here it is.

Robert no longer works in this capacity. According to his LinkedIn profile, he decided to leave the United Nations, and go work in private capacity. See how it works? Influence public policy, then get high-paying job in private capacity - aka revolving-door corruption.

The company with whom he now works is called ‘Dataminr’, and while his profile is cagey on information in this regard, his new boss’s is not. It’s AI, it’s big data, it’s data mining… in fact, it’s ‘integrating all the world’s public safety data signals to create the leading real-time event and information discovery platform‘.

It’s visualisation of global surveillance. And not just in matters of health.

Another name I wish to highlight, this time in the acknowledgements - Joanna Wright at the University of Sheffield. She works with GATE, which ‘creates important opportunities that can benefit from natural language processing (LP) technologies for mining information and knowledge from the text. Examples include extracting patients' background (occupation, HIV stats, prescription) from their records, or labelling protein, DNA/RNA and cell types from biomedical literature.‘

So that’s another data source for the global surveillance monster currently being rolled out. Your private medical records.

-

Now, those two reports, roughly, correspond to the two UK equivalent bills, the UK Online Harms White Paper, which was released in 2019, corresponding to the Child Online Safety report of identical time, and the Online Safety Bill, corresponding to the alleged Freedom of Expression paper.

I don’t know about you, but having our freedom curtailed is bad enough in the first place, but by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport?

Here are they, the Conservative-in-name-only politicians, who clearly don’t have the faintest understanding of the principles of western democracy.

About Ofcom - founded in 2003, they’re supposed to be an independent regulatory service — and one, which WEF Young Global Leader David Cameron promised to get rid of. So much for ‘conservative’ election promises, huh?

Ofcom, of course, are paid via the public purse.

Yet, they have two representatives working with the WEF ‘Global Coalition on Digital Safety‘, which begs a question - who do they represent? Clearly not the interests of the public, as the WEF works to shut down free speech.

As luck would have it, the WEF only in August, 2023, released a document in this regard. ‘The World Economic Forum’s Global Coalition for Digital Safety introduces the Typology of Online Harms, aiming to harmonize universal perceptions of online threats. From cyberbullying to hate speech, the varied interpretations of such issues have fragmented efforts to combat them.‘

Yes, really - ‘the varied interpretations of such issues have fragmented efforts to combat them‘ - good thing that the WEF here can define them for us, to ensure there’s no ‘misinformation’ on the topic.

Let’s have a quick look at this report, as it seeks to ‘clarify’ what the various terms mean. But first, let’s establish that 2 of 4 people in the foreword works on behalf of the world’s billionaires. Not you. I’ll return to this once I’ve roundly mocked the rest of the self-serving garbage this report truly is.

It kicks off with various completely undefined terms - ‘terrorist act’, ‘hate’, and onto the absurdity that ‘digital violence’ truly is - because in a report where we claim to establish, clarify, the meaning of words, let’s just change a few in the process for our own benefit.

The ‘hate speech’ chapter is as broad as can be - of course. It features ‘dehumanisation’ which is complex form of ‘mean words’ (which are ‘violence’, of course, per the ‘digital violence’ part above), and ‘other identity factors’ in the section outlining ‘protected characteristics’.

Yes, really. It’s literally worded to include literally anything they fabricate, including mean words. And this document seeks to ‘clarify’? No, it seeks to criminalise anything anything and everything you do online. Because you will be guilty of one offense, it’s just a matter of how inconvenient you ar-… sorry, it’s just a matter of how stretched said harmonised definitions become.

Amusingly, it also talks about ‘prevent discrimination on the basis of sex’, before continuing only in the next paragraph ‘The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women‘, which explicitly exclude men. Oh sorry, we’re now in the world where an ‘anti-’ prefix makes bigotry acceptable, per the United Nations.

Finally, it also includes definitions on ‘misinformation’, and so forth, most of which explicitly map to what the likes of the information the World Health Organisation and the various health ‘authorities’ spread during covid, but naturally, that will never, ever be clamped down upon. Because of some claimed noble lie, of course, in the extremely rare instance they don’t just ignore questions on the topic altogether, those politicians you elected to represent your views, supposedly.

I could carry on in similar vein, but I’d rather look at the contributors, because oh boy, there are a few very familiar names in there.

First off - 4 of 8 work for the WEF billionaire class, ‘representing your interests’. Then we have 2 working for ‘Crisp, a Kroll Business’, and 2 working as eSafety Commissioners.

Crisp first. Oh look, they actively stand to gain from these absurd definitions. In fact, they also have a ‘digital marketing’ solution - I assume this is essentially chatbots distorting online discourse? Wait, didn’t the WEF document above have a segment on ‘Deceptive synthetic media‘? Oh well, never mind that.

Australia’s eSafety Commission… well, they’ve received a lot of attention due to a censorious online safety bill of their own.

Two first items, sure, part of the WEF proposal. Move towards age verification? But that would require…

… digital ID?

Fortunately, the acknowledgements include just such a company. Yoti. How fortunate for us all! True experts on the topic, and certainly not just talking their own book!

Furthermore, we have 2x Meta (Facebook), TikTok, and Google. Then comes ActiveFence - they’re the enforcers of the ecosystem, we have Cyacomb - digital forensics for when someone has done wrong, then Teleperformance for when someone needs to pay a fine for doing wrong, plus a few final assorted companies.

And you know who else is on board?

The wife of Peter Piot - Heidi Larson. Clearly there to suss out what ‘health misinformation’ comprise.

She, who founded the Vaccine Confidence Project, the Global Listening Project, who contributed to heaps of pro-vaccination, and anti-’misinformation’ material - incl the Salzburg Declaration, and who furthermore contributed to the 3-D Commission’s authoritarian spystate advocacy of global surveillance.

She also has ties with the Rockefeller Foundation along with her husband - who furthermore also is a Gates Foundation Fellow.

And you know what her husband co-authored? Specifically, in April 2020, while (in his own words) ‘on his death bed with covid’? The most controversial whitepaper during early covid days, which advocated global surveillance, and keeping the structure intact post-covid.

Finally, also Susan Ness, who I covered in the first article on the topic (Transatlantic Working Council, along with UK Tory MP, Damian Collins), and David Sullivan, who has worked on more censorship initiatives than I care to mention (though the Global Network Initiative links him to David Kaye, who’s among the very worst in this regard).

In the event you didn’t latch on - nobody represents the public on this initiative. None. They are carving up the pie.

-

Now why would I mention all of this? Because of one key detail from the UK Online Safety Bill. You can find the documents here, for the record. I source this version.

Recall how I stated that Ofcom has not one but two representatives working for the WEF in the capacity of ‘Global Coalition for Digital Safety’?

Well, as it transpires, it’s unsurprisingly Ofcom who are granted the supervisory role in this regard, so it should be fairly suggestive as to whom they truly report.

As for the document itself - it’s a hefty 300+ pages, with addendums. It’ll take a bit of to comprehend, so I’ll return in this regard later.

-

But before I finish, I personally wish to thank the generous ‘funders’ of the Broadband Commission, all of whom collaborated, making this possible. And by all of this, I mean the systematic stripping of free speech in the West.

Partners include the United Nations, the UN, the UN, the UN, the ITU (which also is the UN), the ITU (ie, the UN), Equals we’ll get back to in a second, the UN, the UN, everyone’s favourite World Economic Forum, the UN, and finally the Education Commission, which we’ll also return to in a minute.

Look at all those initiatives, which the United Nations is funding via taxpayer largesse. Thank you for spending our millstone taxation on such wise instruments for our protection.

And the two initiative above mentioned - ‘Equals‘ can be found here. In similar vein, they, too, are funded by lots of UN money - but also the GSMA, the International Trade Center, and the Internet Society.

The Internet Trade Center can be found here. It’s about supply chains, probably those which former Rothschild banker, Thierry Breton, demanded control of under ‘emergency powers’ in the EU, on the 27th of December, 2021.

And the Internet Society? To tell you the truth, I only include this because they supposedly actually spoke out vs prior attempts to push through onerous legislation, like - specifically - the UK Online Safety Bill.

Why are they partnered with the Broadband Commission, who push this legislation? It’s a very strange one, and an organisation I’ll keep an eye out for in the future.

And the final one - the Education Commission? Yeah, don’t keep your hopes up. I harbour absolutely no hope that this particular foundation looks out for any but their own interests.