05/10/23
Infantilization is the prolonged treatment of one who is not a child, as though they are a child. Studies have shown that an individual, when infantilized, is overwhelmingly likely to feel disrespected. Such individuals may report a sense of transgression akin to dehumanization.
Anyone who has been brought up by a narcissist, or in a relationship with one, will recognise this state. As will victims of slavery. Infantilization is a spanner in the slave-master’s toolbox.
This new censorship bill is going through to royal assent. It includes an attempt to interfere with end to end encryption, as the Commissariat of Communications can’t help sticking their nose in where they’re not wanted. The Bill has the usual serving of gobbledygook designed to confuse. That way they hope we will all be afraid to voice opinions which differ from the official narrative.
The one thing which is made very clear in the bill is that when it comes to being liberal with the truth, the MSM have been given every get out clause they need to continue to regurgitate their usual drivel. The Bill splits online activity into different categories. The main ones are “User to User’ services and ‘Search services’ and other ‘internet services’. Search services seem to be things like simple video messaging services, but they are characterised by having a search engine. What’s App actually does have a search engine facility which can be used via a bot. User to User services seem to be things like Facebook or You Tube/Rumble etc. So a user to user service is one which allows more uploading, interacting etc. Within User to User services are something called ‘Category 1 Providers’ who seem to have extra rules imposed to remove ‘legal but harmful’ content and to remove ‘fraudulent advertising’.. In theory it should mean all further advertising of the fake covid vaccines is removed, in practice we know that that kind of medical fraud is welcomed and promoted by the establishment.
The Bill outlines duties that Providers of services are supposed to adhere to. OFCOM are given more powers to issue codes of practice regarding these requirements. However what is not clear is who ‘Providers of services’ are’? With say Facebook, that would be the controllers of that platform, but with blog platforms like Substack there is a grey area. Substack do not take responsibility for what is posted on the site. Therefore as a producer of a blog on substack , very possibly that person is counted as the ‘Provider’. Those who post comments under articles are considered ‘users’. Blog platforms like Substack from what I can make out, are not classified as either User to User or Search services and might be exempt from being required to police their own users and risk assess everything. HOwever I am not holding my breath since I may have missed some small print Swahili somewhere that I was supposed to be able to decipher. But it does seem that Substack would be classed as a ‘Limited Functionality Service’ because it allows only limited commenting or a ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ button to post views on what is termed ‘identifiying content’ (ie blogs or articles).
One of the duties imposed on regulated platforms is to take down ‘harmful’ content. Harm is defined as meaning either physical or psychological harm. Quite how something posted online could by ‘physically harmful’ I am not sure. Unless you count the radiation coming out of the device which is known to cause cancer and they can pin a particular piece of radiation to a particular message?? But psychological harm, well where do you stop with that one? They have given themselves plenty of scope . Their definition of harm includes (but is not limited to) harm that arises from or may arise from any of the following three things:
‘the nature of the content’
‘the fact of its dissemination’
‘the manner of its dissemination’
User to User services are now legally required to assess their users for ‘risk of harm’ and this includes adults. They must put in place processes whereby people can report ‘specified type of content and activity’ to them. They also are required to co operate with the police. These two facts together will mean more halfwits in uniform will be turning up to knock on people’s doors because somebody, somewhere claims they have been upset by a wrong opinion. A friend of mine who lives in a sheltered housing complex for the elderly told me that they had a number of officers visit them for ‘tea’ a few weeks ago. This was because some of the elderly people had been arguing about who could sit on which seat in the garden. I could not clarify what the crime was or why the police were called but then again, why would the police bother prioritising stabbings, robberies or burglaries or assaults when there are difficult elderly people to discipline. Especially when those elderly people already have wardens to help them. We will have to hope that these cantankerous geriatrics don’t start to go online on mass because that might create an impossible conundrum for Officer Plod and Officer Piddle. Getting old is inherently risky and further amendments to this Bill may be required to deal with ‘age risk’.
Harm, according to this Bill, can be cumulative. So lots of little ‘harmless’ messages when taken as a whole could be considered ‘harmful’. Algorithms can cause harm too so if your message gets amplified by them, that’s just bad luck for you.
Part 10 of the Bill introduces a criminal element . Originally they included a new crime of a ‘harmful communication’ offence but have bowed to pressure to remove this clause. However similar offences are covered in the Malicious Communications Act and the Communications Act 2003 so people can still be criminalised for upsetting people. What we have remaining in the Online Safety Bill includes:
A ‘false communications offence’ ,
A ‘threatening Communications’ offence
An offence of ‘encouraging or assisting serious self harm’ .
Then there are offences relating to digital material of an explicit nature and also flashing imagery which could cause problems for epileptics.
The ‘false communications’ offence seems to be the most concerning. The crime would be to send a message (ie communicate in any way) which contains false information whilst intending that message to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to another (or to several people). How exactly sending a message online can cause physical harm, I am unsure. It cannot, directly cause physical harm so If by intending to cause harm they mean somebody could possibly harm themselves, or be influenced to harm others, that cannot be directly attributed to the person sending the message. For example if some random Tik Tok user tells you to go and kill your grandmother, you do not have to obey them and murder her. They are not standing behind you with a gun to your head forcing you to kill your grandmother. They have not caused her death. If you follow their advice and shoot your grandmother, the cause of her death is you firing a gun at her. Not some moron on Tik Tok or What’s Ap mouthing off. Historically if someone was pissing you off you told them to ‘go jump in a lake’. Mostly they weren’t stupid enough to do it.
Nanny state has made it clear that you must make sure you call a spade a spade. Don’t call a spade a fork (like nanny does) , or you could be making a false communication. And don’t phone your mate and say
‘I’m gonna bang you over the head with this spade I’ve got in my hands you ignorant moron’
if you don’t really have a spade in your hands because that is a false statement and jokes do not appear to be exempt from this landmark legislation in this history of the ‘free west’. Most actually funny comedians are already cancelled and although you are allowed to send this kind of false message if you have a ‘reasonable excuse’, I wouldn’t bank on humour being a reasonable excuse in modern Britain.
Beware if you are sending this message to a couple or several people because at that point, according to this new legislation, you don’t even have to intend to cause harm. Any hint of calling a spake a fork or visa versa is going to be outlawed. And beware of sending hyperlinks. If you haven’t studied everything beyond the link with a fine tooth comb and read and understood all the small print you might be in trouble.
Predictably the MSM are exempt. They can continue to call spades forks and vice versa all day every day and intend to harm as many people as they want, suffocating us all with their garbage.
One good thing is that films made for cinema are also exempt. (however note the ‘made for cinema’ bit’) That won't apply to that useful little ‘how to’ video you just shared on you tube.
Songs are not exempt. And it is not just the songwriter or performer that needs to be aware. Anybody who shares a song which contains false information in the lyrics could end up being accused of having committed an offence.
I can think of a few examples which could prove problematic :
‘Why do birds suddenly appear, every time , you are near ….’
‘I ….. I …. will always love you …oouuuuu …..’
Also depending on the time of year you might be able to still get away with …
‘ Summertime, and the living is easy ….. fish are jumping and the cotton is ……….’
or
‘Raindrops keep falling on my head ……..’
Check the weather outside first though if you’re watching something on you tube and you might get tempted to share it.
‘So here it is merry christmas everybody’s having fun ……..’ (the favourite song of the lonely and isolated)
And as for threatening messages watch out for Blondie:
‘One way, or another, I’m gonna find yer, I’m gonna get yer get yer get get yer …….’
or Gloria Gaynor
‘.. go on go, walk out the door, just turn around now, coz you’re not welcome anymore ..’ (could upset someone)
Then of course you’ve got the problem of Nirvana, The Dead South, angry women like Alanis Morissette, or angry men (Rage Against the Machine) and a whole host of other bands or whole genres like Rap.
Even Vera Lynn could conjure up horror film scenarios ….
‘We’ll meet again…’
Under the Terrorism section of the Bill they are making it illegal not just to be a member of a proscribed organisation or raise money for them, but just to express an opinion in support of one. So presumably now you are not allowed to express support for Hamas or Hizbollah if you have sympathies with the Palestinian cause. Nor would you be allowed to voice an opinion in support of any of the Northern Ireland paramilitary groups, either Catholic or Protestant.
Last but not least to use any sites which could be accessed by children, you will have to verify your age. This means ID or biometrics. Yet more surveillance.
So bearing all the above in mind who is going to police the facts? Who else but the arbiters of truth and righteousness, Full Fact. So who are Full Fact? The Trustees who founded it were the following. From the nobility we have Michael John Samuel aka son of 4th Viscount Bearsted. Eton educated. Where else. Has his fingers in pies to do with babies and child mental health (Freudian -psychoanalysis and ‘mentalization’ - whatever that is). Personally I am not convinced that people that believe they are the sole arbiters of truth should be around kids at all. Another founder was (now deceased) Peter Archer (life peer) who was an extremely active member of the Fabian Society ( a socialist eugenicist organisation) and a President of the ‘One World Trust” (which means what it says on the tin). Then we’ve got Baroness Julia Neuberger, (nee Schwab) Zionist Rabbi. Daughter of an art critic. Born in Hampstead and privately educated there, before attending Cambridge university. She endorsed the notorious Liverpool Care Pathway and then later was appointed to chair the ‘independent review’ of that system, leading to her impartiality being questioned by bereaved families. Then there’s John Lloyd , journalist former editor of two leftie liberal publications, the New Statesmen and a contributing editor for The Financial Times. Last but not least you have the Beebs very own ‘historian’ Professor Jean Seaton, who has taken money from Leverhulme (Unilever) - Lever used forced labour in the Congo and other mistreatment of workers in the Soloman islands to help make their fortune. And she has been funded by the Axess Foundation
https://axsonjohnsonfoundation.org/publishing/ This link shows an interesting little clip of a morphing face on a lamppost on their website. Jean Seaton wrote ‘Pinkoes and Traitors, the BBC and the Nation 1970-1987’. This book has been variously described as ‘densely argued’, ‘littered with inaccuracies and demonstrable distortions’ and ‘a standard left wing publication’. David Elstein has pointed out
‘…surely what we need from a professor of media history is a degree of accuracy, respect for the facts, ability to check detail, detachment and sound judgement, all of which Pinkoes and Traitors so lamentably lacks …’ https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Jean_Seaton.
Initial funding for Full Fact was from two donations, one from Michael John Samuel (above) and one from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Foundation. This is an organisation which has been exposed for having benefited from slavery and has its fingers in all the usual pies in the name of philanthropy, think fluffy rainbows, climate, covid propaganda, mass immigration and breaking down borders. They should have stuck to making the sweets (Rowntrees gums) . Those weren’t bad as it goes.
The Online Safety Bill which will be on the Statute books very soon marks the end of what remained of free speech in Britain. With the excuse of making things safe for kids, the whole of adult Britain has been shoved back into nappies and confined to our cot.