David Vance SubstackRead More
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer seems obsessed about controlling social media. This is manifest in his government announcing stringent new rules requiring social media platforms to remove “non-consensual intimate images” within 48 hours of a report. Non-compliance triggers fines up to 10% of global revenue or outright bans from the UK! This is another blatant attempt to take out X.
Starmer must hate the mockery he receives on it! He is a thin skinned tyrant.
Starmer has framed this as a frontline defence in the “battle against violence against women and girls”. The dreadful harpy Technology Secretary Liz Kendall has emphasised that alleged victims should “report once and you’re protected everywhere.” Isn’t it odd that such concerns didn’t apply to the victims of Muslim rape gangs in Labour controlled areas?
Tied to the Online Safety Act and amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, this new policy responds to rising concerns over image-based abuse, including AI-generated deepfakes highlighted by recent incidents on platforms like X.
While the intent to protect victims may seem laudable, this mandate represents a vast overreach that prioritises faux toughness over efficacy.
The 48-hour deadline proposed is unrealistically short for global platforms. They process millions of reports daily. Verifying whether an image is truly non-consensual—particularly with sophisticated deepfakes—demands a careful investigation, including assessing context, consent evidence, and potential disputes. So rushing this process risks wrongful removals, where consensual or artistic content could be swept away in a precautionary frenzy. However on reflection that actually may be the aim.
Moreover, the definitions are vague. What precisely qualifies as an “intimate image”? Nudity? Suggestive poses? Starmer in a nappy? This lack of clarity invites all kinds of malicious abuse of reporting systems! Bad actors could easily weaponise complaints to censor rivals, journalists, or political opponents.
The penalties are also way too severe. Fines reaching billions $$$ for companies like Meta or Google, or outright market bans, wield existential threats that totally incentivise over-compliance rather than nuanced judgment.
Smaller platforms may simply exit the UK altogether. This will reduce user choice and fragment the digital ecosystem but I think Starmer would like that. The extraterritorial ambition—imposing UK-specific rules on global services—reflects a regulatory hubris that could provoke international backlash or reciprocal measures.
Labour’s rush to legislate amid public outrage over AI abuses suggests political virtue signalling over reasoned policy. True progress demands international cooperation, and robust prevention technologies, not draconian timelines that burden platforms while failing to address root causes like perpetrator accountability.
In pursuing this, the UK may erode online freedom and innovation. Starmer doesn’t care, he will keep pushing UNTIL President Trump puts him in his place.
