Nanny State Battles Big Tech

Full Podcast + Links:

Follow us on GETTR:
Subscribe to our other channel – Lotuseaters Dot Com

Other platforms:

Odysee – Podcasts:
Odysee – Other Videos:


Sound Cloud:
Google Podcasts:
Apple Podcasts:


Other socials:



Leave a Reply
  1. Nudes. If you don't want them, you can block them. If you know who it is and are particularly annoyed, you can forward them to people they would not like to see them, like their parents.

  2. I lost a 30k fb group laughs jokes and witty one liners because I posted a meme saying the 3 things that survive in the cold.. polar bears , pebguins and slags
    Whole group gone for bullying and I even lost the appeal

  3. Parental/user controls are one thing. There are existing tools (DM from mutuals, no new accounts and such). Proper tagging of content should be a reviewable and etiquette option for social media services.
    Trying to sanitise and directly control the entire internet is quite ridiculous. Are the met going to have an international wing to go arrest people in turkey/France/Norway/USA who offend the politically incompetent U.K. politicians?

  4. What lads is our biggest issue?! MEAN WORDS ON THE INTERNET! Ah yes, true that, truly our most important cause!
    Meanwhile, over a million children have since been introduced to the fair culture of Islam! obviously just mere life choices, que distant raep sounds
    I see nothing wrong here, just as it should be! now then, about those mean words.

  5. wanking pass is actually a good way to RESTRICT SITES CHILDREN SHOULDN'T ACCESS not just porn but all sites like facebook twitter 4chan minds anywhere you can access social media or adult content.

    children shouldn't be using any of this

    maybe we should have a small tarrif on call it social media or news tax. i mean a porn blocker would just be the first part of the cenosroship they will try to gain support for censorship long as it's to protect the kiddies right?

  6. The reason for the proposed 'David's Law' is not because there's a claim anonymous people on Twitter kiIIed him, but because Sir David was horrified with online abuse targeted towards women, impressionable teens, and the vulnerable (e.g. tweets encouraging someone to 'self terminate'). Sir David's concerns came after social media companies repeatedly refused to hand over details of users engaging in such acts (I don't think this podcast would endorse that type of behaviour, even as free speech advocacy), leading to very real world harm. Then, for some reason, Mark Francois decided to try and use Sir David's death to reinforce that point, but was misquoted and taken out of context by the media, which decided to use it as a vector for inserting the removal of online anonymity entirely into the Bill. Smear merchants indeed. I hope that clears up the confusion.

    In my opinion, what would be more appropriate is a law which makes social media companies regulated by Ofcom (as Bitchute is). This would afford people more protection and freedom of expression, where needed and applicable under law, and more powers for the police, where needed, in criminal investigations.

  7. All these efforts to control "misinformation/disinformation", and all of them only needed because one particular wing of politics wants people to decide everything a certain way. If people didn't have that government club to wield, nobody would care about any of this.

  8. Honestly I hate this country with how it's nannying everything … From making a manslaughter charge equal to murder because some cop decided to play hero in a situation that didn't need it, and now "David's" law to essentially destroy how the internet works

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *