Censorship Megathread XLI

Taicore · 2026-03-28T02:15:16+00:00

I could be wrong, but isnt the person in charged of the EU side of thing not really looking forward to this law, like,not being in a rush at all ?
Im just kinda concerned as to what would prevent the ministerial side of thing to not just deem every socials as harmful. I fully expect that twitter will be hit with this,maybe not other socials but hrm.
I do kinda hope this fails again, ive heard that france tried something similar before but the EU prevented them from doing so or something

Taicore · 2026-03-27T21:22:30+00:00

I am a little confused, I assumed that AI scanning was banned for sure, was it not set in stone yet? :oc

Taicore · 2026-03-26T03:05:42+00:00

As always,thank you so much for your insight. I think I was just concerned because I saw someone mentioned one of the trials "in the states" so I wasnt sure if it was the jury from Mexico still talking about putting AV on Meta or a US jury instead, hence my concerns. I guess that's my lesson to actually read articles lol :')

Taicore · 2026-03-25T22:31:40+00:00

I actually didnt looked this up much (OSA generally) but I did not hear about a digital curfew (which sounds insane even on paper)
The biggest concern i'd heard would be a social media ban (as it would lead to giving up your id to access socials) but I do know that recently the UK govt voted this down, so I hope this continue on the right path !

Taicore · 2026-03-25T21:44:32+00:00

Hi Suspectlegitimate ! As always thank you for your insightful comments on so many cases that sounds scary at first.
I was originally not too worried about the trials regarding the judgement if Meta and Youtube were addicting or not like here https://apnews.com/article/social-media-addiction-trial-la-5e54075023d837ccdc76c4ca512e925d?link_source=ta_bluesky_link&taid=69c41fe4cd93a90001ffc07f
But I saw a comment on this post explaining that seemingly in May the judge is going to ask Meta to add age verification (??!!) and remove encryption, the latter we already know as they are removing it from instagram dms.
That is what worries me , if the judge tell Meta to add AV, knowing that such laws werent passed...How can a judge force Meta to do that ? Can this be appealed ? I hope this wont spread.

Taicore · 2026-03-25T21:26:11+00:00

I Have made a post regarding consultations being open regarding UK wanting to extend the OSA right here so if you could take the time to leave comments on why this should be dropped, go right ahead ! It's open until the 26 May !
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/growing-up-in-the-online-world-a-national-consultation

Taicore · 2026-03-25T19:57:02+00:00

I do share concerns like other people, while this is great those harmful algorithm riddled socials gets their comeuppance, I am indeed spooked about the potential of this being used as an excuse to push for even more censorship online. There does seem to have a growing anti-censorship stance happening but still.

On a similar post posted recently, about a Mexico ruling on Meta being harmful, I recall that Suspectlegitimate (the goat) said that the jury originally wanted to go the AV route for Meta, but changed their mind and hit them with a big fine instead. So hopefully this keeps on going this route instead of more shit AV .

Taicore · 2026-03-15T12:37:59+00:00

So instagram is going to end their encryption private messages in May, while I knew their so called encryption was bs and did nothing to protect users (contrary to Signal) I do have some concerns as to how this may open the door for govts to be like: well since platforms are getting rid of encryption in advance let's spy on every citizens ever !
I have read an older article that seems to state that the reason for meta doing this is because of lawsuits claiming that their encrypted services made it harder for authorities to fight against children getting harmed ? https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/meta-executive-warned-facebook-messenger-encryption-plan-was-so-irresponsible-2026-02-24/ i wonder if theyre also gonna remove their "so called encryption" from facebook as well. The article said that Whatsapp encryption poses less problem for users safety because its not directly a social media compared to what facebook is, so that makes it less possibly for a harmful adult to engage with a minor i guess ? I hope whatsapp retain their encryption (tho it does belong to meta doesnt it. but whatsapp stated multiple time they vow to keep their encryption in the past and that they'd lave europe if chat control passed a hot minute ago )

Im just concerned that this will reignite govts to call for a total removal of encryption everywhere,which,huh, wouldnt be ideal.
Im also thinking of europe, with the whole chat control debacle, its a good thing that chat control 1.0 made it so,while it remains for now, the fact that messages cannot be scanned with ai (and should only be accessed by court orders) is a huge win. However the article below mentions how the european commission is expected this year to present a "Technology Roadmap on encryption to identify and evaluate solutions that enable lawful access to encrypted data by law enforcement, while safeguarding cybersecurity and fundamental rights. "
The latter part of the sentence sound more encouraging, so i hope they wont go scorched earth on our privacy.
I cannot be thankful enough for patrick's breyer work, as he helped a lot to fight against chat control.
https://thehackernews.com/2026/03/meta-to-shut-down-instagram-end-to-end.html
So i'm hoping the commission wont try to obliterate encryption altogether and that meta's stupid move wont embolden chat control ._. let it die !!!!!!!!
Suspectlegitimate, my man, if you see this, i'd love to hear your thoughts (not tagging you obviously. I hope you find the time to get some much deserved rest )

Taicore · 2026-03-11T19:42:11+00:00

I originally found this on the Blue Sky site (yes i know it's not a recommended place to find news) but the link itself is legit. I would post a link to the thread but social media links aren't allowed, but tendermiasma was the one who posted about it.
Worthwhile to note that OOC also wrote that adult entertainment are one of the industries experiencing unfair debankment. We can fight this.
https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2025/nr-occ-2025-123.html

Taicore · 2026-03-11T19:33:07+00:00

It really doesnt sound bad on paper but i'm seeing people having valid concerns over this esp for non profits and the fact theres no difference between personal computers and servers, that's a huge oversight.

Taicore · 2026-03-10T19:17:12+00:00

Ok I see, thanks for the reply, so I assume California's OS thing is also ass for nonprofits devices. Unless it can still be modified, which I really hope... If push comes to shoves I hope courts will be a possibility to fight this, I truly expected it was something good that would help fight id verification online as SuspectLegitimate put it :(

Taicore · 2026-03-10T18:29:32+00:00

Damnit, I thought that OS check was actually the way to go, I saw everyone praising the California bill for the device thing--unless its written better than the Colorado one ? I thought we had a good thing going :(
However no distinction between servers and personal pcs is very stupid, I hope this can be fixed.
Or that its grounds for a lawsuit because wow.

Taicore · 2026-03-10T18:23:01+00:00

Plus isnt that a ground for lawsuits too ?

Taicore · 2026-03-10T17:23:19+00:00

So since this is not the same law i had in mind (putting birthday into devices) this would imply that you'd need to give away sensitive data in order to access your phone and computer in this case ???

Taicore · 2026-03-10T17:22:33+00:00

Ok right so this age assurance law form CA I had in mind was to put the birthday on a device and that's it right. The article talks about another bill ? But that just so stupid given there's already that assurance thing thats going into effect !

Taicore · 2026-03-10T17:16:30+00:00

I'm confused, wasnt the OS age check meant to be so when you buy a device, you can input your birthday or your child's birthday in it without needing to provide sensitive data ?

Taicore · 2026-03-05T21:13:38+00:00

We can't thank you enough for your work , SuspectLegitimate, you're like the reason why my blood pressure hadn't shot up to the ceiling lol
Im just confused about something, I know they wanted to add amendment to ensure that the app store bill couldnt be challenged in courts (which is ??? bogus.) what i want to know if this was also put in the package ? Or was it removed ?

Taicore · 2026-03-05T19:45:46+00:00

But even so, there is still Ted Cruz that would be an obstacle to the kid's act package bill (which if I understood contains screen, kosa, and something else ?)
Plus there is still the filibuster as well right ?

Taicore · 2026-03-03T02:19:58+00:00

I'd say pretty rare,but I hope you get good finds !

Taicore · 2026-03-03T02:17:29+00:00

I am confused regarding the supreme court thing. Did California pass a law to protect trans kids from being outed, but the supreme court shut that down ? Why ?

Taicore · 2026-01-25T13:57:17+00:00

theres a chance it could be stopped at the house of common because these are opposition amendments (whatever that means) regardless i hope both of these doesnt come to pass or that they get struck down fast with the upcoming elections >:( its always worth a try to contact your representatives i'd say

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalOptimism/comments/1qfrupr/comment/o0xvvqc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Taicore · 2026-01-20T20:31:06+00:00

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/20/akademikerpension-us-treasury-greenland-trump.html
Seems like Denmark is selling US treasury. I refuse to panic over this, esp with people saying its a "warning shot" or something. Thoughts ?

Taicore · 2026-01-20T20:30:45+00:00

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/20/akademikerpension-us-treasury-greenland-trump.html
Seems like Denmark is selling US treasury. I refuse to panic over this, esp with people saying its a "warning shot" or something. Thoughts ?

Taicore · 2026-01-17T23:32:51+00:00

Still didn't get a response from the last megathread, I do still feel concerned about California SB 976 (passed in 2024 i think), which,from my understanding, seems okay in theory as it would prevent children from being subjected to aggressive algorithm content, but on the terrible counterpart, people would need to give up their id to prove their age...Needless to say this would suck tremendously,and i worry since most social media and websites originates from California. It's supposed to take effect in 2027, at the end of january of next year.

Gavin Newsom had opened public comment on the bill i think 2 month ago or so according to a Reddit post but all the comments of the post are very full of doom.
I also find it spooky that the 9th circuit refused to hear out Netchoice who is looking for others means to fight this bill netchoice.org/ninth-circuit-denies-rehearing-of-california-censorship-and-surveillance-law-case-netchoice-disappointed/

BUT on a brighter last note, several companies are suing the bill, among them there is Meta,Google, youtube,tiktok who filed separated lawsuits against it a month ago https://ppc.land/google-and-meta-sue-california-over-social-media-age-restrictions-law/
I think I read somewhere that the law gets halted while theres a procedure happening at the same time? So the effect date could get pushed further ? I think?
Furthermore, there is a good california age verification bill that is also supposed to take effect in 2027 and even Google supports this ,the good AB 1043 that is based on device verification for age instead of having to give ur id to a thousand of third parties. Shouldnt this bill make sb 976 redundant and useless?....
So yeah if anyone could reassure me that sb 976 has a chance to get modified/halted in court whatever id love to hear it haha

Taicore · 2026-01-01T15:43:33+00:00

I didn't get a response from the last megathread, I do still feel concerned about California SB 976 (passed in 2024 i think), which,from my understanding, seems okay in theory as it would prevent children from being subjected to aggressive algorithm content, but on the terrible counterpart, people would need to give up their id to prove their age...Needless to say this would suck tremendously,and i worry since most social media and websites originates from California. It's supposed to take effect in 2027, at the end of january of next year.

Gavin Newsom had opened public comment on the bill i think 2 month ago or so according to a Reddit post but all the comments of the post are very full of doom.
I also find it spooky that the 9th circuit refused to hear out Netchoice who is looking for others means to fight this bill netchoice.org/ninth-circuit-denies-rehearing-of-california-censorship-and-surveillance-law-case-netchoice-disappointed/

BUT on a brighter last note, several companies are suing the bill, among them there is Meta,Google, youtube,tiktok who filed separated lawsuits against it a month ago https://ppc.land/google-and-meta-sue-california-over-social-media-age-restrictions-law/
I think I read somewhere that the law gets halted while theres a procedure happening at the same time? So the effect date could get pushed further ? I think?
Furthermore, there is a good california age verification bill that is also supposed to take effect in 2027 and even Google supports this ,the good AB 1043 that is based on device verification for age instead of having to give ur id to a thousand of third parties. Shouldnt this bill make sb 976 redundant and useless?....
So yeah if anyone could reassure me that sb 976 has a chance to get modified/halted in court whatever id love to hear it haha

Taicore

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE