2026-01-09 19:23:46
Apparently ICE Agents are not meant to shoot defenceless observers who are trying to get away from them.
2026-01-09 17:51:31
The internet is speech and if you take the position that “bad speech is harm” rather than “bad speech demands good speech“, the only effective option is a kind of Digital Brexit where you block your citizens from participation in the bigger world. The UK Government will simply have to start censoring internet access for all Britons.
Or it could give up on the pretence of global control… but that would look like weakness.
Elon Musk’s X could be banned in Britain over AI chatbot row
2026-01-08 23:43:32
First … As a so-called “independent regulator,” Ofcom is not supposed to reverse itself under political pressure. Here, it appears to have done so.
Second, in the absence of any concrete evidence that my client has done anything wrong, and until this week Ofcom’s stated public position was that it had not, Ofcom has taken the extraordinary step of, once again … using regulatory correspondence to take pot shots at opposing counsel.
https://prestonbyrne.com/2026/01/08/the-ofcom-files-part-v-block-harder/
2026-01-08 17:11:16
1/ the Online Safety Act’s network regulations are not about protecting children, they are about attempting to control the internet
2/ the controls being sought are directed at the wrong entities & would never have been effective anyway, for multiple reasons
3/ for those reasons, we are now in a realm of kafka-esque comedy:
2026-01-08 05:38:58
Fascinating geek read for anybody who wants to monitor how nation states perhaps manipulate internet routing to their advantage:
https://loworbitsecurity.com/radar/radar16/
And a more cautious take:
2026-01-08 02:47:58
The website is in the USA which has constitutional free speech protections that will render meaningless any attempt to impose a “fine”.
As such, headlines like the attached make Ofcom appear to be attempting to save face via performative regulatory posturing. It’s kind of tragic.