Culture

Longhousing The Internet

How many feminists does it take to screw in a new internet?

That’s not funny!

Good joke!

On you.

The headline “Ofcom poaches Big Tech staff in push to enforce new internet curbs” rides above a picture of six overly earnest looking cat ladies who, as it turns out, will be charged with censoring mean tweets.

Women unused to the personal protection of men seek instead the employment of distant “authorities” to keep them “safe”. By “safe” they do not mean safe, because there is no physical harm to be found in social media post. It is always a wholly imaginary departure from safety. Departures that these scolds scour the internet for just so that they can be “offended”, which, of course, is a form of pleasure for them.

Ofcom has been poaching staff from Big Tech companies as the UK media watchdog prepares to enforce one of the world’s toughest new regulatory regimes for the internet.

The regulator has created a new team of nearly 350 people dedicated to tackling online safety, including new hires from senior jobs at Meta, Microsoft and Google. Ofcom also aims to hire another 100 this year, it said.

The staff increases are a response to the Online Safety Act, which became law in the UK in October. It gives the media watchdog sweeping new powers to oversee some of the biggest companies in the world as well as hundreds of thousands of smaller websites and apps.

Here are rulers, displeased that the people in their charge have been getting away with having forbidden thoughts, and posting these forbidden thoughts on the internet for all to see. So the rulers hire a brigade of females, each of whom has had her sense of humor surgically removed at college, a painful process which leaves the transistioner forever bristling in the presence of jokes. This gives them a kind of superpower, a heightened sense that somebody somewhere might be thinking That Which Shall Not Be Thought. After the surgery, they can tell just by looking at a screen name whether they are dealing with a thought criminal.

What’s odd is that rulers are announcing they are engaging in censorship of Reality. Yet, except for us, not many seem to care. The Cult of Safety First! has wreaked terrible psychic damage on the populace, such that the majority themselves demand “safety.” And, as Mencken said, they are going to get it good and hard.

Of course they are getting away with this in the name of What About The Children! A not infrequent ploy. Yet, as we have all seen times innumerable, once they get a restriction in the name of the kiddies, they apply it everywhere.

For instance, Ofcom has reached out its icy hand towards “dating services” and “review services”. It’s well known that black men are least preferred on dating apps. Look for companies being forced to make women date at least one black man for every three whites. Once a company becomes known as “minority owned”, negative reviews will be verboten.

I jest, but only slightly.

Wait until you see how the army of humorless box-wine ladies police “private messaging services”. Yes, these are on the list. They’ll have “AI” do the policing, I’m guessing, so they can claim everything is still “private”. But be careful of your language. What you say, and even, likely, what you don’t say, will be used against you.

If you enjoy doublespeak, here is how the internet longhouse rules will work:

Our role is to make sure that regulated services take appropriate steps to protect their users. We don’t require companies to remove particular posts, images or videos, or to remove particular accounts. Our job is to build a safer life online by improving the systems companies use to prevent harm.

We will have a range of tools to make sure services follow the rules. After consulting on them, we will set codes of practice and give guidance on how services can comply with their duties…

Under the new rules, we will have powers to take enforcement action, including issuing fines to services if they fail to comply with their duties. Our powers are not limited to service providers based in the UK.

They don’t “require”, but you must “comply.” They have “powers” to “enforce”. “Guidance” becomes “duty”.

Their powers are not limited. I do not say so. They say so.

The internet, like your job, will be longhoused.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.

Categories: Culture

11 replies »

  1. Haha. This goes hand-in-hand with the national push to lower residential speed limits to 20 mph.

    England and Wales spent around £40 million to install 20 mph signs around the country. Because “safety”. This is an auto insurer’s wet dream. Imagine all those points being tacked on to driving licenses, the increased premiums, and no associated increase in risk! Think of all the extra £millions flowing into the government coffers!

    Outcry has ensued, so the Welsh have been told by their government overlords that “We won’t book anybody unless they are going over 25 mph.” Haha. £40 million spent to reduce the legal limit by 5 mph.

    They must think we are as dumb as bricks.

  2. Man, these people are going to kill telecommunications. This is the final endgame. They will attempt to create a system where you are either an NPC or offline. I’d say something about HF radio comms but HF radio has a bandwidth problem. Well, it’s probably fine if 5-10 percent of people are using it. OTOH, microsats and nanosats are just about affordable for a bunch of people who know what they are doing and they might be used to create a grassroots telecommunication network that Ofcom can’t really attack. Satellites can be plausibly placed at orbits above 300 km altitude, where NATO weaponry can’t reach them, or above 800 km where (current!) Russian weaponry can’t reach them. Furthermore, it MIGHT be possible for ground stations (dissidents) to shape their uplink beams in such a way they can’t really be direction-found. There’s plenty of work to perform on this, but I’d suspect this could be done, especially if people of the West and East team together in the fight against Globohomo. 🙂

  3. “how services can comply with their duties”

    This jumped out at me. Government edicts are now the “duty” of all citizens to enforce. Sounds pretty Orwellian to me.

  4. –>”For instance, Ofcom has reached out its icy hand towards “dating services” and “review services”. It’s well known that black men are least preferred on dating apps. Look for companies being forced to make women date at least one black man for every three whites.”

    I’d often said, only partly in jest, that in order to prove one’s bona fides regarding the championing of LGBTQWERTY, you’d need to have gay (or tranny) sex–otherwise you’ll be labeled bigot.

    I see Briggs has imagined the same tact so as to avoid being tagged a racist!

  5. “overly earnest looking cat ladies”

    “humorless box-wine ladies”

    Oh, Briggs, you’ve brought levity to my otherwise dreary morning. Thanks.

  6. Just like the completely optional vexxine passport, you’re not forced to do anything!

    You can either freely choose to delete the accounts of offenders and censor what they don’t like… or you can freely choose to pay the fine.

    See?

    Freedom!

  7. Ohferpitysakes…

    Back in the daze when Usenet was young (I am that old) I remember rlogging in under an ambiguous username because there were so few females (or at least “out” females) online. Yes, I’m a female. I cut my teeth on the wild and woolly internet, before social media.

    Oooo…I’m having flashbacks to some fun memories! Those were the days.

Leave a Reply

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