Who should moderate the internet? In 2017, Germany passed a law forcing Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other sites to remove hate speech, defamatory fake news, and other “illegal content” within 24 hours or face fines of up to 50 million euros. Other European governments have been busy drafting similar laws, and the European Commission has also considered regulation (though it has recently “backed away” from proposing legislation).

Whose responsibility is it to mediate hate speech? Should governments intervene, or should they leave it up to online platforms to self-regulate? Critics of legislation worry that tight deadlines might lead to accidental censorship as companies choose to delete questionable content rather than risk a fine. Supporters, however, point out that platforms have been slow to respond to the problem of illegal content being shared by their users, and argue that introducing new legislation would merely mean that existing rules governing free speech offline were also effectively being enforced online.

Today’s debate follows on from our earlier panel discussion in the European Parliament on freedom of speech, hate speech, and moderating illegal content online.

Want to learn more about moderating illegal content online? Check out our infographic below (click for a bigger version):

What do our readers think? We had a comment sent in from Lubomir, who argues free speech has clear limits: “free speech shouldn’t mean you can slander others, lie and misinform deliberately, or incite others to violence and bloodshed.” Is he right? And, if so, how can our societies, in practice, keep this sort of content off the internet?

To get a response, we put Lubomir’s comment to Jens-Henrik Jeppesen, Director of European Affairs at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a non-profit organisation that campaigns to protect online fundamental freedoms and rights, including freedom of speech. How would he respond?

Next up, we had a comment sent in from Maricela, who thinks internet platforms like YouTube and Facebook should be fined if they don’t remove hate speech. She argues platforms “should be fined if they don’t implement a reporting system and immediately take action after getting justified complaints from other users… They should hire people if their AI is not yet capable to handle these bad comments.” Is she right?

To get a response, we spoke to Louisa Klingvall, a Policy Officer in the Fundamental Rights Policy Unit of DG Justice and Consumers at the European Commission. How would she respond?

Who’s responsible for keeping illegal content off the internet? Should internet platforms be fined if they don’t remove hate speech? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

IMAGE CREDITS: (Public Domain) – T. Chick McClure
Editorially independent content supported by: Google. See our FAQ for more details.



130 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. avatar
    catherine benning

    Who’s responsible for keeping illegal content off the internet?

    Who determines what hate speech is? Anyone want to explain who will be the arbiter? My view being, there is no such thing as hate speech. It is an absurd and ignorant concept to pretend otherwise.

    Hate speech is determined by those who want to subdue debate. For example, I don’t like mandatory introduction of sexual transmogrification, into the classroom of UK 5 year old children. Which now, under a Conservative government, has been brought forward. That is an abusive turnaround, as young children have no perception of adult sexuality. It frightens them. It frightens them when they are twelve let alone five. Yet, they have brought this into English schools as mandatory. The claimed reason is, because we have so many different family units where those attending British schools today are being raised by so many different family structures, ‘all’ must feel welcome. Huh?

    This is not simply the two men and two women family, it is to accommodate polygamy and other lessor known indulgence. Many Mums, but not many Dads, must be acceptable to our ‘British’ children and their equality enlightenment. And the true message of this ‘new world’ thinking is, to remove the notion of traditional family. However, if you say out loud it should be questioned, debated publicly, voted on, or, in any way raised as an issue, you will be accused of, wait for it, ‘hate speech.’ Ostracised by the school your child attends and pressured by threats. Social workers called in. The gays will be upset, the polygamists, the naturists and so on. In other words, Western civilisation must have no boundaries in acceptance of what you may feel is unacceptable. And you cannot escape it, so it removes any legal right to association..Meaning, you must not indicate you intend to bypass these unheld views in your own family. Hence, get rid of the traditional family. It is seen as a stumbling block to enforced cultural preference. A major step to destruction of the human safety net. Humanity thrives in the traditional family environment, Mum and Dad. Which has been proven repeatedly. And now ignored completely by the ‘leaders.’ I wonder why that is?

    To keep this myth going, children, now adults, raised in such chaos are banned from speaking out on the internet. Their pain and their stories are wiped off in an instant. They are not considered people worthy of opinion. They are speaking ‘hate speech.’

    Of course this is one simple example. There are a thousand others equally as detestable. To reject is a natural human condition. Survival depends on it. Call it hate if you want to, but, who is to determine what you must like and what you must not dislike? What millions presently find appalling as a concept will now incarcerate you if you dare speak out against it.

    Here is the story of a man in the UK who has dared to speak out on much that has been hidden from us all. He tried to reveal how powerful organisations collude in order to bring us fake news. Watch how they do it and how it is backed up by powerful collusion. It will shock you. It did me.


    And this guy exposes the premise that the ‘New World Order’ on family units may not be preferable to the welfare of the human race. Will he end up like Tommy? Will he be thrown off ‘youtube’ and incarcerated because he dared to voice his experience and opinion for debate?


    And lastly, this is a very hard to find page, as most all who question their situation are removed from any website. I know, because I read them five or six years ago and now they are virtually non existent. The opposite view is the ‘all pervasive’ lets read this positive back up. Hate speech cannot be tolerated, can it?


    • avatar
      Eric Brown

      Totally agree. So called ‘hate speech’ is insidious and should be consigned to the dustbin. In any free society, free speech is paramount, everyone has a right to criticise. What Government’s are doing now is basically modifying everyone’s thoughts to thwart criticism and debate. If we are not careful we will end up with a tolalitarian state which must be avoided at all cost.

    • avatar
      Len Gibney

      Also the film industry is subject to censorship…censors have differing views proving they should keep their grubby little hands off anyway.

  2. avatar

    You want but you cannot control the web.

    • avatar

      Alfredo – no but they can censor social media which is their real agenda. They want to control the truth. Only allow you to see their version of it.

    • avatar

      Martin – Then social media will fall. It will be left as a tool for entertainment for the mindless masses that love to bathe in thinking they are “influencers”, while true discourse, vision, and debate will move to less centralised tools, less prone to dictate.

    • avatar

      If you look at what happens to people critizising extreme amounts of migration, versus actual foreign rapists and vandals, you see what the government(s) see as their actual enemies..

    • avatar

      Martin they have done it for years through BBC news Government controls all the media Most Of the press owners actually sit in the Lord’s and as for Murdoch his men are in Westminster Hall parlament Tony Blair for one and let’s not forget Hunt Over his handing of the sky take over Hunt should have been thrown out of parliament but instead he sits on the front benches parlament is a Cesspit of Corruption a complete disgrace to democracy and the Nation

  3. avatar

    Stalin also killed ten millions people accused of “hate speech”…

  4. avatar

    What do you call hate contents ? I don t hate any ldy but want to stay free to criticize illegal migrations or Islam charia…. Otherwise I would consider EU as non democratic zone

  5. avatar

    Intolerance comes from ignorance, a lack of critical thinking, a lack of understanding and a lack of respect and caring for fellow humans. These things can be taught and will make the world a better place.

    • avatar

      and you think censoring social media will improve all that?

    • avatar

      Teaching is an ethical alternative to censoring. Censoring is dictatorship.

    • avatar

      Julia so what if people believe the content that is being taught is not just to ensure that servility rules the day. Conformity for all or else you will get blocked or banned until you say or do the right thing. Oh yes, just like a second referendum because we got that wrong too, apparantly.

    • avatar

      Tricia that is what critical thinking is for. Once you are a critical thinker you will not be fooled or manipulated easily. That is why it is not being taught.

    • avatar

      Good luck re-educating radicals.

    • avatar

      Steve you can’t educate nutters .

    • avatar

      Steve the focus should be on the younger generations for long-term improvements. Radicals, extremists and the ignorant cannot be changed by censorship or education.

    • avatar

      Julia you’ve just contradicted your 1st comment.

  6. avatar

    Depends on the type of “illegality”. In most cases – the police.
    If you are making “speech” illegal – that is “censorship”, and it should not be allowed in any free country.
    Just keep in mind the many feminist-groups who claim “toxic masculinity” is “the problem”, can be also considered as “hate speech” ;)

  7. avatar
    Shadow Hand

    A private person should not tell another private person what they can and cannot say. Legally these companies are like private entities, they are not the Government. They have corporate agendas and each worker has their own personal views, character and agendas. As such private companies are not competent and impartial enough to police the constitutional rights of anybody, and they should never practice such a thing unless a court confirms a comment as being illegal. Freedom must be protected. Today we see so many critical but perfectly legal comments censored, this is unconstitutional as it violates freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, freedom of political expression etc. Private people should have the right to press criminal charges on anybody that violates their rights to freedom of speech by censoring their legal speech, these private entities must be held criminally and financially liable when they break the constitutional rights of users of their platforms. Owning a website and operating a website doesn’t give you the right over other peoples constitutionally protected rights.

  8. avatar
    catherine benning

    Who’s responsible for keeping illegal content off the internet?

    I wrote a perfectly acceptable response to this thread, with links giving examples of European state censorship, which included a man being incarcerated in the UK for making a video exposing a rigged and organized TV Panorama BBC programme that falsely accused him of hate speech. Along with other censorship of legitimate exposure of children suffering under legislation brought in throughout the Western world, without the consent of citizens or debate on the matter, that put these children in such a position. It has been censored across the internet under the term of denying ‘hate speech’.

    However, DE have not wanted to reveal this already ongoing outrage. Could that mean they too collude in the denial of these citizens ‘human rights’ to expose, on the internet, what is happening to them via European law?

    Debating Europe should not ask the public for comments on matters they are too afraid to discuss openly.

  9. avatar

    Who decides its illegal? Corrupt governments? Illegal to them is truth. Its another way to censor what you see.

    • avatar

      I mean what about stuff that obviously *should* be illegal, like child porn, viruses, or pirated videos? It’s clearly not “censorship” to delete stuff like that off the internet nor is child porn anyone’s idea of valid free speech.
      Ergo – someone has to have the power to police the internet one way or another. And just like any system of policing it is also open to potential corruption to political or corporate interests, but that doesn’t mean we can do without it. So we have to debate who has that power.

    • avatar

      But that surely is similar to asking someone who has no idea about driving a car to then TEST a learner driver on their skills or ability to do so…?

    • avatar

      Colin – By your logic, who would you have sit on the jury for a murder trial?

    • avatar

      If you look at what happens to people critizising extreme amounts of migration, versus actual foreign rapists and vandals, you see what the government(s) see as their actual enemies..

    • avatar

      Tim the victims relatives .

    • avatar

      Seriously Katherine?? Here we have a prime example of leading with the heart and not the head. The whole idea of a trial is for it to be fair and impartial…..which is precisely why strangers are assembled on a jury…..the “victims” family members would not grant a fair trial. What you’ve suggested is merely a step up from street justice.

    • avatar

      Lee if it stops them killing again .who cares .

    • avatar

      Lee well if they can’t be on the jury let them mete out the punishment .

    • avatar

      I totally agree with you Martin and just look who chief director of Facebook none other than Clegg how does I failed Politician and lier like Clegg end up in that position ?

    • avatar

      Kathrine you seem to be assuming that defendants are always guilty. That’s against the first principle of British justice – innocent until proven guilty.

    • avatar

      Their attempts to control the internet will only wake more people up to their plans.

    • avatar

      Had to be 13. All that Covenist esoteric New World Order Satan worship.

  10. avatar

    The EU having to much of a say in Ireland if you ask me

    • avatar

      If you listen too mainstream media,it’s put across that Ireland wants to stay in the EU…..

    • avatar

      IreExit all the way

    • avatar

      Tommy Along with Scotland yet when Scotland had a vote of go their separate ways or remain with England guess what the Voted to stay so much for the media Controled By parlament and obviously the European Union and now they are clouding the water more with the so called fake news we are governed by the most corrupt people on the planet

    • avatar

      We just need a leader with a pair of balls to say no now & again . . . Not like Mr I am the E.U. ! Anyway there’s a storm coming more & more awake now

  11. avatar

    The Internet is free for everyone’s opinion and not just left.

  12. avatar

    The self awareness?
    There is huge lack of empathy,
    The social media is just constrain the idea of anxiety leaving individuals feel themselves alone and even threaten by others, that’s why they act carelessly about others feeling or even aggressively against other after their mind diagnose them. As enemy
    The solution is not by blaming or controlling
    But by establishing lots of society organisations and push people toward more than one, so they can build big network more than one friend that can leave at any giving time, so they can work. With each other for better target for better reasons for better world, only then those thing (illegal content) will disappear by itself like it was never exist

    • avatar

      Wasim excuse me but why is everyone do precious sticks and stones and All that if people think I’m an idiot that is their opinion but it doesn’t bother me if they physically attack me it’s a different matter but come on we are supposed to be grown up not little hard done to moaners we must be very careful with censorship it well lead to the end of freedom of speech

  13. avatar

    The owners of the sites have a duty of care.

    • avatar

      censorship Neil that if we are not careful will take away our freedom of speech

  14. avatar

    “THEY” really need to ask WHY there even IS hate…? (and WHEN it started to be so…?)

  15. avatar

    When “who gets to burn whose books” is legitimate discourse, it’s a good sign that we’ve somehow managed to let the kind of people that would burn books into power.

    • avatar

      Alex and the books you referring to would they be history ? Because Government is hellbent on changing history I wonder why what they trying to cover up ?

  16. avatar

    Well that’s a whopper of a question. Obviously someone needs to be able to take down some content. Nobody is arguing that brazenly pirated or unethical content should go uncontested.
    The country of uploading might not have the resources, or have a corrupt police force which can’t be trusted to do the job. We certainly can’t trust Russia to police the Russian internet.
    We can’t trust service providers for obvious reasons since ISPs are run by executives unbeholden to public responsibility.
    So the burden falls to the police of each individual country in Europe and their police force – easy enough for obviously illegal content, you get your stuff taken down under local censorship laws and ideally you can appeal to the ECHR if you think it was taken down unfairly.
    Not ideal for people who think the EU is itself corrupt, but what else can we do? Just have a law saying you can’t remove content? People will abuse that overnight. Someone needs that power and this is the only way we can ensure that decision stays in the hands of national lawmakers.

  17. avatar
    EU Reform- Proactive

    “Where should the limits to freedom of speech be set?” (e.g. DE quoting comments from 04/06/2015 “Lubomir”). On 27/02/2019 a (similar) repeat question- “Who’s is responsible……?”

    Isn’t it tiring & costly to regurgitate & repeat by asking the same thing over & over- every 2-5 years using version number 0a to 0z- eventually starting at 00a to 00z & back again in algorithmic fashion?

    Is it attempted brainwashing or running out of ideas? A remedy might be to reduce & limit the bombardment of “similar questions” to 1 or 2 per week & invite our honorable politicians to be direct participants & caught in the “slaughter” with the voters. Who would be brave enough? Hands up please!

    Oh- not enough time? Or- is it the protection of the most vulnerable & honorable from honor?

    Of course- not to forget- “opinion harvesting” is a business nowadays! Profitable when outsourced- as our “National Democracy” morphing into supra-nationality- costing “a penny or two” extra!

    Just checking: does my innocent comment has any “illegal content”?

  18. avatar

    Speaking the truth his not hate speech so stop banning people who disagree with government

  19. avatar
    Alex Warner

    I agree with the video. The U.K. along with The E.U. need to find a way to effective outlaw all hate speech on social media. As a Trans Woman I happen to feel strongly on this issue.

  20. avatar

    How do you decide what hate speech is, a fag is slang for a cigarette, probably not yet hate speech, it is also slang for a homosexual, that probably would be considered hate speech, who decides what I meant?

  21. avatar

    The age old question.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    Whose job is it to protect you from wrongthink and facecrimes?
    Our glorious and benevolent EU, of course.

  22. avatar

    Yes to Europe, no to the EU. Dismantle the rotten eddifice.

  23. avatar

    Anything you say these days is treated as anti something or someone. All they want to do is stop posts like these so like minded people can exchange news and views. If they want to stop fake news they should ban the BBC. If it is not fake is is a one sided conversation.

  24. avatar

    And the answer is 🤔the GLOBALISTS

  25. avatar

    The EU especially with article 13

  26. avatar

    coersion is far more dangerous than actual laws. The number of people arrested and detained in the U.K. but not charged is frightening. Often I don’t like what they say. But I’m with Benjamin Franklin on that one.

  27. avatar

    Hate laws were only made to stop free speech.

  28. avatar

    Yes keep us like a flick of sheep, with no way of k owing what’s happening and why , everyone’s point of view is valid, we don’t have to agree with it, that’s up to us as individual humans to accept or ignore . Ignorance can not be an exscuse

  29. avatar

    Wrong people get hate speech. Get used to it. Bullets possible in future

  30. avatar

    HATE is a powerful Word, I don’t hate anyone I like or dislike something or someone!!.but where the problem arises for me and others is when a people come to my country as so called “refugees “or immigrants and then tell me that my countries laws don’t apply to them because they have a different religious ideology!!.that then escalates into violence aka HATE is born,and please don’t quote British history at me,we ordinary people have not say in what governments past or present do,the same as they have no say in what their Hate preachers or religious clerics do..😡😡😡😕😕🎚🎚🎚🇬🇧🇬🇬🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿This is just my opinion!!!

  31. avatar

    So far its the people who have the worst intensions like the bbc and greedy immoral mp’s censoring free speech to stay in power.

  32. avatar

    Who’s responsible for looking after immigrants while denying our own decent housing

  33. avatar

    Strangely enough, ‘illegal’ and ‘hate’ speech are entirely acceptable, as long as it’s coming from an ‘approved’ ethnic group. If you’re white Christian however, you’re sh*t out of luck. The thought police are after you.

  34. avatar

    Every ones opinion is different, when you start telling folk what they can say or think then the freedom as gone as long as it not threats of violence ,just cos you don’t like people’s views on certain things happening in the world or in the uk doesn’t mean they can’t have them .not every body loves or likes everybody or every thing .

  35. avatar

    If one ever needed proof that dealing with the EU is dealing with a Dictatorship one only needs to examine their Policies on Hate Speech. It’s basically a censure of freedom of Speech.

  36. avatar

    Tyrants, given that every state in Europe seems to be set on censorship.

  37. avatar

    It’s not very difficult to scroll past something you don’t think is suitable for you. I did notice when someone is doing something worthwhile people have no trouble ignoring. Just saying.

  38. avatar

    And so – this is how we’re corralled and driven into totalitarianism.
    Dumb, dumb, dumb, easily frightened sheep.

  39. avatar

    It’s an interesting proposition..
    Should governments decide or platforms..
    Governments can not be trusted to not use this to promote there own agendas..
    Platforms should not interfere with free speech..
    So the only answere is us..
    We use these platforms and are the best judge.. this will of course lead to false or fake news, and propaganda..
    We then have a duty to highlight this for other users..
    If we leave it to other we may as well listen and watch mainstream media because that is all we are allowed..
    Have you not had enough of others telling you ,what to think and believe it’s time we take on the responsibility for our own life’s and the information that we read..
    Think about it if a platform starts censoring what you read then you will move to another, if government tries you will use other media forms, one of the main reasons the internet has taken the place of main stream is because most have learnt you can not trust those “normal” forms of information..
    Lock down the internet and you promote the next format…

    • avatar

      Why cut my finger nails, They will only grow back….

    • avatar

      True they will, not really the same thing..
      in this case any new form of media may damage the already fragile hold we have on our relations with each other, also what is the internet used for most? Porn..
      So any new form would include trafficking in porn which I don’t really have a problem with, yet there are negative aspects of this my fragile sensibilities would prefer did not use these formats for..
      then we would increase taxes to prevent these forms, this would either cost us more or take away from policing that is already limited..
      Does weather you cur your finger nails have any other downfall other then your food will not get stuck behind?

    • avatar

      Tyrone the internet is used mostly by Government’s to spy on us the general public everything is on the internet except Government papers so while Government can soy in us we can’t soy on them hardly fair because Government is the biggest collection of freeloaders milking the nation dry

  40. avatar

    Censorship is illegal, unless someone is outright threatening someone or bullying them online or trying to radicalise someone, I agree those types should be barred censored and maybe even prosecuted, but debating issues even if the subject to some is uncomfortable or not to their taste shouldn’t come under the category of hate speech. There is a fine line between what is a hateful thing to say and something that has come from a fearful point of view.

  41. avatar

    Define illegal content! And who the hell decides what illegal content is!

    • avatar

      those it offends ,so basically as everything is offensive nowadays , they might as well shut the internet down .

  42. avatar

    …..and who decides if the watchers content is not propaganda or illegal?

  43. avatar

    Who is policing the `content` police????

    • avatar

      Clegg the failed Politician FFS how far have we slipped when people like Clegg can walk into a job monitoring the Content of social media

  44. avatar

    hate speech = whatever is uncomfortable to those who run the european project. bye bye project, we are taking our freedom back and suggest other countries do the same

  45. avatar

    The truth is illigal. We see what they want us to see. Look how Bias and lies has dominated brexit. Look what happens to Tommy Robinson 24 hours after he posted 4 hours of undercover work on the bbc who was going to set him up. With john snow saying the bbc wont het rid of me ive got things on them!

    • avatar

      Lee Government is a dirty Business it’s also a collection of the most corrupt Businesse people in the Land parlament is nothing but a Cesspit of Corruption it’s Anti Democratic that much is obvious to everyone surely and look at the shining example of the Lord’s that protect Tony Blair in fact every single failed cabinet member somehow ends up in the Lord’s how does that work exactly parlament is the only place that you literally have a so called job for life

  46. avatar

    oh i know, i know…. its china isnt it? lol

  47. avatar

    If your going to remove “Hate speech” best do it with all parties not just single out one same with flags etc as you cause problems if only removing one side do your job right and maybe you wouldn’t have as much Hate while we’re at it get us out of the EU

    • avatar

      well said Eileen

    • avatar

      yes it works both ways .

  48. avatar

    No one!.. why should there be?…can we purge the planet of crime,or doing bad things?…nope…so why do people think we can on the internet?

    • avatar

      the biggest criminals are in control of us William the Government is now becoming a Dictatorship under the European Union rule

    • avatar

      Given their track record,I don’t think the Tories or labour would be any better

  49. avatar

    The internet should not be controlled by any governments.

    • avatar

      it’s gone wrong for the Government Remember Tony Blair insisting that everyone has the internet his purpose being to keep tabs on us all but now that we have turned the tables and put our Treasonous Westminster Hall Traitors under the spotlight suddenly they don’t like freedom to communicate with each other

  50. avatar

    The originators should be charged by the police under existing incitement laws. Making the platforms responsible is like blaming a car for speeding.

    • avatar

      censorship Neil that if we are not careful will take away our freedom of speech

  51. avatar

    “Hate speech” is a term used and abused to silence people who question the authorities narrative.

  52. avatar

    They are slowly and surely removing free speech from the internet.. whoever they are

  53. avatar

    Using this mentality, next thing car manufacturers will be responsible for motorists speeding. Only a few people can see how government scum everywhere are slowly eroding freedom.

  54. avatar

    Our MPs are honest, T May is loyal to the UK, its ok, that comment will be removed soon, lol

    • avatar

      Tim stay off the drugs your hallucinating.

    • avatar

      an honest MP would be a very rare thing indeed but a honest cabinet member is as rare as hen’s teeth

    • avatar

      They usually get rid of truely good politicians, thats why they dont exist.

    • avatar

      Enoch Powell was a prime example and also Robin Cook Emma

  55. avatar

    It #Depends what is count as #Illegal #Content and by #Who? #Government?

  56. avatar

    Somebody always hates something …… 👍

  57. avatar

    We need a central sccccrrrrruuutinizer

  58. avatar

    debatingeurope.eu another self- appointed quango that thinks it has the right to control what we see and do. No thanks.

    • avatar

      Steve it has never claimed that, it has only encouraged and brought up a subject for debate.

  59. avatar

    When Hillary Clinton came out after her election loss she cited fake news on social media sites. It was obvious to me at least that this was a call to arms to the elite throughout the world to silence freedom of speech on social media. Since then Merkel has charmed FB’s arsehole to diminish right wing activism on his site. Nick Clegg (liberal) now on FB doing the very thing liberals ought not to be doing I.e. censoring. You could nt make this up!! Tommy Robinson banned….for what? Certainly not hate speech just the truth. UKIP activists banned ( most now reinstated due to Gerad Batten’s intervention). The left call the right fascists but yet they dont know the meaning of the word. The liberal climate we now live in is nothing different to a Stalinist regime.

    • avatar

      totally correct David Westminster Hall and parlament are well and truly in the public’s headlights and They hate it because the general public has finally woken up to the Corruption that runs throughout Government and they will aim to end freedom of speech there main tool the internet used for spying on us has backfired on the Government and now they are stuck in the spotlight and the general public can see the corruption inside Westminster Hall are getting desperate to stop us talking to eachother on the internet

    • avatar

      I just dont understand why more people dont see it and for those that do and just sit back and do nothing

  60. avatar

    And one shouldn’t forget who is doing the job of “removing” the reported abuses. Very good documentary to watch: “The cleaners”. Also outsourced to Asian countries, where people are watching mostly horror content all day long so that it doesn’t “stay” on our screens.

  61. avatar

    European Union becoming North Korea

  62. avatar

    Parents are responsible for kids. Adults are responsible for themselves. We don’t want more state control! Speech doesn’t need policing.

  63. avatar

    Who says what is “legal content”?
    – The “ministry of truth” ?

  64. avatar

    Whoever is hosting it I would presume.

  65. avatar

    who decides what’s illegal
    legality is defined by whos in power…

  66. avatar

    These days almost everything is illegal in Internet

  67. avatar

    Who’s responsible for the definition of what is illegal content on the Internet?

  68. avatar

    The law — strongly opposed by the tech industry — puts Australia at the forefront of a global movement to hold companies like Facebook and YouTube accountable for the content they host.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.