How could you suggest such a thing?
Ofcom has ordered social media companies to combat online misogyny by changing the algorithms that push hateful content to users.
The regulator has moved to crack down on the “manosphere” and violence against women as part of its mission to make Britain the safest place to be online.
It’s telling people what they may see or hear, not censorship.
Tsk.
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
1984, George Orwell
After which it’s still unenforcible, but Things Are Seen To Be Done™.
It’s telling how a lot of people think making something “mandatory” would somehow make that something happen all of a sudden. by Magic™.
But really, they should have a go at it.
It’s trivial for Meta, Amazon, and the others to return a simple Void Page on any request from… anywhere, really…
Void the UK from Social Media a couple of days and see what happens… It’ll be a hoot…. 3:)
I can go out to work and treat the foxy bints there like normal colleagues, because of being able to indulge in some online misogyny.
“The guidance is not enforceable”
There’s a couple of things about this internet regulation of social media. Firstly, most of this is what Meta, LinkedIn etc does anyway. It’s not good business for them. Secondly, Ofcom mostly do things to justify their phony jobs. “Look at how we’re protecting you”. Like fining 4Chan. As if a load of degenerates in the USA are going to pay it.
You can tell Ofcom is run by a woman. Turns up in her nice suit every day, announces some things, probably has some meetings, achieves the square root of fuck all.
And gets paid £357,000 a year. What mugs we are.
I belatedly noticed a sidebar story from when I googled her salary. Including her, Ofcom has 20 staff paid more than the prime minister (£172k). Kill it, kill it now and salt the ground.
They may well be better value than the PM though…
Mostly, but if there’s any real money involved (fines, or a subscriptions-model) the whole thing tends to snowball. 4Chan may be able to stick two fingers up at Ofcom, but anyone worried about getting fined will be squelching anything that looks like it might be controversial. And/or gold-plating any arse-covering that comes down from the payment processors.
More obvious/serious around the porn sites, but no reason to assume the same pattern doesn’t repeat.
How are they defining ‘women’. Because as we all know that’s a problem for this government…
The definition of ‘misogyny’ would surely include “not respecting” our “always underestimated” Chancellor…
Barbara Castle must be spinning in her grave at the way modern Labour female politicians invoke misogyny when they get a bit of criticism. I’m not sure this what she and others of her time fought for.
The Home Office are joining with Ofcom in a new, revolutionary tactic to support the strategy of reducing misogyny by having each and every illegal immigrant sign a statement designed personally by Sir Kier Starmer swearing on the Koran not to rape and torture amy women during their holiday here…
This ‘Schrodingers woman’ crap is boring. After being told women are strong, fearless, independent and every bit the equal of men, they are at one and the same time, delicate, fragile, vulnerable and in need of protection.
Fair do’s; everyone has their strong and weak points. But in that case so do men, and the problem there is that the world works on the assumption that men will not turn weak when they really mustn’t, and until recently that assumption mostly held.
After being told women are strong, fearless, independent and every bit the equal of men, they are at one and the same time, delicate, fragile, vulnerable and in need of protection.
When it suits the interests of women, feminists will happily contradict themselves! Always!
Yep …. see my comment about Barbara Castle above.
Looking at the ‘Internet Matters’ website is instructive actually – basically it’s a huge illustration of why the country is in such dire eeconomic straits. I’d be genuinely staggered if even 1% of its income came from private donations – it’s clearly a quango – and it needs immediate abolition – with any accrued pensions bought out as a lump sum. And I think I saw on TCW an article that shows that’s what Reform have to do – cut off the hydra’s heads. Organizations like this are the bedrock of the Deep state and the footsoldiers of the Greens and Yourparty. In a war the destruction of enemy supply lines is vital and the entire ‘Non-profit’ area is basically their source of almost everything. Destroy that and they wither away like plucked weeds.
Exhibit A: USAid.
Actually, they’re paid for by internet and phone companies, who want a nice PR win.
Some of what they do is fine. Like advising parents how to protect kids, which seems like a good idea.
But your general point is spot on. There is a huge amount of spending on these fake charities and quangos, all designed as sockpuppets, and all outside of the normal processes of government. And yes, those people in those institutions are going to want more state because they depend on the state.
Thanks for that WB and it may be my incompetence as I couldn’t see from trawling the website who set the concept up – almost Corporatist in its outlook!!
All societies, ever, have censored. Most of them did that by social pressure – from Burkean little platoons, in the main – arising from a common ground of slowly evolving shared assumptions about what was appropriate to say, write and do. In the modern West, mass immigration, the declining influence of the churches, and the emergence of socially corrosive phenomena like feminism, Marxism and moral relativism have eroded the common ground. Since censorship is no longer done informally – though the PC mobs have tried to achieve this by cancelling offenders – the governmental elites want it to be done formally…
That is up there with the old “islam is a religion of peace and we’ll kill anyone who says otherwise” Theo.
Gamecock wants to see that code.
I think there’s a lot more ‘pull’ in that. He goes looking for it, more gets served up.
Platforms will have to make misogynistic content less lucrative by, for instance, tackling advertising revenue generated by figures such as Andrew Tate.
They must also impose time limits on people who repeatedly target women and girls.
To stop “pile-ons” against women, in which figures are deluged with online criticism, the companies will have to set volume limits on posts. Ofcom’s measures have received a warm welcome from the sporting community, in which female athletes are frequent victims of such tactics.
The England football players Jess Carter, Millie Bright, Lauren James and Alessia Russo have all been victims, as has the tennis player Katie Boulter.
We should build a separate internet for women that’s just cat pictures, recipes and interior decorations.
“We should build a separate internet for women that’s just cat pictures, recipes and interior decorations.”
They wouldn’t be happy with that. Not if the other internet still exists.
We know what happens whenever there’s a male space. First women demand entry to it, then they demand that it is changed to suit them.
If Andrew Tate didn’t exist, they’d have to clone him in a lab. Have you noticed the oddly shaped headed one is Emmanuel Goldstein?
The Times claims, without evidence, that “Social media platforms continue to profit from content created by Andrew Tate, a self-proclaimed misogynist”.
What’s their profit? Enough to buy a Kit Kat, maybe? Tate is considerably more famous from being regularly monstered by the press than he is from his internet activity. In the real world he’s very much a clownish fringe oddball, but he probably didn’t realise how desperate the authorities were to find a “white” man to be the poster boy for “misogyny” and “human trafficking” (a charge they seem to want to dangle over his head forever without a trial). After all, it’s not kids who watch Andrew Tate videos who are throwing acid in women’s faces and organising rape gangs, is it?
Are you telling me ‘Adolescence’ was FICTION, Steve?
Anyone been raped online? Groped online?
Tens of thousands of children raped, tortured and exploited by Paki scumbags, but Andrew Tate’s bullshitting is the problem.
People say hurty words on the telephone. Ofcom must insist the phone company monitor calls.
‘Platforms’ should have NO algorithms. That’s what makes them a platform. And shields them from liability law.
The service provider should respond to complaints, but not actively monitor CONTENT. They are literally, by definition, not responsible for content, they are just providing the soap box.
They really messed up when they responded to Democrat requests to control content. Against the First Amendment, but apparently not against any existing law, the government got the platforms to monitor and manage content.
This horrified Elon Musk, so he bought Twitter. He was shocked to find government agents actually had OFFICES in Twitter headquarters. He fixed it, freeing it up for people to say any stupid thing they want.
And now, this:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/11/eu-set-quietly-pass-chat-control-legislation-that/
Your tariffs are about to jump. Big. Trump will not allow EU to dictate how American companies are run. Musk doesn’t want to manage X content for London or Brussels.