this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2025
61 points (88.6% liked)

UK Politics

4201 readers
114 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 23 points 1 week ago
  1. It wasn't the Online Safety Act that blocked this. I am sure it along with its accompanying article is still available un-age restricted on the BBC, unblocked by the Online Safety Act. It was Twitter that blocked it.
  2. It isn't really a "negative" headline about Labour, it's just what the Labour politician said. I think it's more likely that Twitter decided to block it because it was overall a pro-Palestinian article, than that Labour had anything to do with it. As far as I'm aware of Twitter's management's stance on UK politics I would imagine they love shitting on Labour and censoring things about Palestine.
[–] Pandantic@midwest.social 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Proving, once again, media censorship “for the children” can become whatever your government wants it to be.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago

That would be true if the article weren't utterly full of shit.

The blocking has nothing to do with the OSA, it's X's internal censorship policies.

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

The Online Safety Act was introduced by the previous, Conservative government; it does not have a political partisan element to it.

While fundamentally flawed legislation like the OSA is bound to produce chilling effects, I can't really sympathise with the gutter-press journalists at The Canary who can't even tell the truth about the situation: the headline and article aren't "blocked by the act"; they are age-gated by twitter's interpretation of the act. This is not the same thing in the slightest.

Sorry Guv, that political speech belongs to the queen

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago

Something something 1984 communism

[–] lmdnw@lemmy.world -3 points 1 week ago

Because the UK government has always been about protecting the right of white people to terrorize and murder people of color. Who has committed more terroristic acts during its existence, Hamas, or the UK?