Rumble didn’t cave to demonetising someone (the government sent letters to). Now this is in the pipeline.
Government… MSM… Agendas… Nah… Democracy 
Going the right way isn’t it.
Why you tagging me?
The Online Safety Bill has been in the pipeline for years, this is the piece of legislation referred to in the article which will soon become law.
So you are drawing a false conclusion if you are suggesting that it is only now in the pipeline as a result of Rumble not demonetising Brand.
The headline mentioning Brand is a bit misleading and done to spice up a story that otherwise would not be getting as many eyes on it.
5 Likes
Yes and ppl always take the bait.
1 Like
Oh I didn’t know it’s been in the pipeline before but it’s not really about when it came into the pipeline.
It’s about that the British government is doing its utmost best to stifle freedom and control the narrative.
I mean, one of the bits I read was how they give plausible arguments for the bill: pornography, suicidal content and so forth and then banally add “misinformation” re: covid vaccines to the same list.
That’s just outright nasty.
If you’re going to causally link it to Russell Brand specifically, then then the amount of time this bill has been in the pipeline is absolutely relevant.
I’m not saying that the bill is good or well intentioned, nor am I defending its introduction, so I have no argument with what you go on to say after the bit I’ve quoted.
You would find it wasn’t me, it was The Times who did.
I simply share their article.
Glad to read you are critical of this bill.
Well you didn’t, you also offered the following comment:
Here you imply a causal link between Rumble refusing to demonetise Brand and the introduction of legislation that could effect platforms like Rumble.
So unless you can point me to the bit of the article where The Times suggests that the bill is being introduced as a result of Rumble refusing to demonetise Brand, it was you and not them who did it.
1 Like
You know very well I went off the fact they write about this bill and mention Brand in the same breath.
Don’t act like you don’t know that.
I’m not acting like I don’t know that, my whole point is that you’ve seen an article that mentions Rumble, Brand and the Online Safety Bill and then come to a false conclusion that the Online Safety Bill is a consequence of Rumble refusing to demonetise Brand.
So what? I shouldn’t have written: “Now” in my answer. What does it actually change about anything I wrote about regarding this bill, Britain, government etc?
You do have too much time on your hands.
I already made it clear that I’m not addressing that aspect, just the bit I initially quoted. You know this because you acknowledged me doing so.
Instead of just admitting you were wrong to imply that the bill is a consequence of Rumble not demonetising Brand, you first tried to argue that the bill being in the works for a long time is irrelevant, and secondly that it wasn’t you who said it, but The Times (I asked you to quote the bit of their article containing that assertion but of course you haven’t, because the article doesn’t say it)
So you should be more self aware saying things like this, because you’ve matched me post for post and have at minimum done as much as me to make this conversation go on longer than it needed to. You do realise this conversation ends as soon as either of us decide to not reply to the other?
https://x.com/skynews/status/1708857762317255052?s=46
Prison time could be a possibility
Don’t know about prison but being shamed and made a national/international pariah is pretty bad.
Doubt the judge has the power anyway. It would set a bad precedent.
3 Likes
Hamas doing disgusting things in Israel right now. The fall out from this will be major.
lol @ the nation newspaper
Try again bro
2 Likes
IDF and Israeli security forces caught napping big time, which is surprising.
I didn’t think an infiltration of this scale could happen