Britain PM To Use Attack on Subway To Control...
UK Prime Minister, Theresa May is reportedly putting pressure on tech giants Google, Facebook, and Microsoft to take down “extremist” content which she views is the cause for the Tube (UK subway system) terror attack that injured at least 30 people on Friday.
May’s office at Downy Street is referring to online terror-training videos and bomb-making manuals and not the government policies that foster a terror environment.
On Saturday, an 18 year old terror suspect was arrested on for the attack with a 21 year old accomplice arrested on Sunday in west London. Both are suspects in the plot which the Islamic State (ISIS) is taking credit for coordinating.
Although the intent to take on the tech titans was reported before the arrests, it is likely that Mrs. May will attempt to carry out her plans to do so when she meets with French President, Emmanuel Macron next week.
While this supposed pressure on Google is assumed to be for a good cause that fights terrorism, there is no acknowledgment of the obvious failure to define exactly what Google and other tech giants would be able to censor. In fact, almost all the major tech companies already engage in shutting down what they refer to as “hate speech”, though evidence suggests that terrorism and related rhetoric is not included in those companies’ definition of “hate”.
Daily Mail of UK reported that, according to “sources” PM Theresa May and UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd are putting pressure on technology firms to take the issues seriously. “We have repeatedly told them they (tech companies) have got to do better. There is more to do and we expect them to do it.
In particular, the article refers to an online manual that Daily Mail employees were able to search on Google just hours after the Tube terror attack. The manual, published back in 2010, is a step-by-step guide to building a bomb similar to the one used Thursday. It actually failed to detonate completely but still managed to injure the aforementioned bystanders.
Others in the UK government weighed in on tech giant Google. Member of Parliament (MP) Jacob Rees-Mogg said the company should be held criminally liable. “Google has amazing software that makes it possible to search for anything. This has made the company billions of pounds; it is shameful that it will not use its technology to root out sites that help evil-doers.”
He went on to say, “I would like to see the company made criminally liable for the result of any terrorist act that it can be shown to have abetted. It must do more to help prevent terror.” Such a statement could be viewed as a willful threat to Google in order to force it to comply with literally any demand by the government.
The ability to freely search internet can obviously aid the execution of terror attacks, but failed policy is clearly to blame for the incident happening. Therefore, the reaction by government officials to go after tech giants appears to be a scapegoat of sorts which do little to actually address the problem of terrorism in the country. Some may even agree that doing so indicates an ulterior motive.
Following the attack, President Donald Trump caused a firestorm of criticism for Tweeting the suggestion that the attacker was already known to police. Yet, Trump may have been proven to be correct when a neighbor of the unnamed 18 year old suspect reported that the young man had been arrested and taken into police custody and let go only two weeks earlier for unknown reasons. Scotland Yard refused to comment on this, likely due to the implication of its own failure.
In addition, it is known that the young man is a Muslim refugee taken in by well-known foster parents. In fact, the foster parents’ last nine intakes were all refugees. The UK has suffered repeated terrorist attacks in recent years at the hands of Islamic extremism in direct correlation with the onslaught of refugees as well as the increased growth of those populations.
In spite of this, the government has favored political correctness over public safety, and largely maintained its “Open Borders” philosophy. There is an overt denial of the facts in order to continue the pseudo-intellectual narrative of multiculturalism. This ideology has lead to thousands of deaths by those who wish to take advantage of the supposed good nature of the multicultural society.
What is curious, however, is that the first thing that Downy Street and other UK politicians wanted to attack was the free use of the internet. In many cases, community leaders usually prefer to attack and blame those who disagree with their narrative. That is to say, often without evidence, the pseudo-intellectual officials blame conservative thinkers and nationalists as “racists” or “Islamaphobes” who, through their behavior, cause the attack to take place.
By using this latest attack, it is possible that the intent to “go after internet titans” is really much more than it appears on the surface. The idea might be that the UK politicians, who are generally progressive in nature, want to be able to define the term “terrorism” to include any speech or action that disagrees with the progressive state.
In other words, the government could require Google to regulate and prevent any literature, speech, or media that disagrees with it politically. Only allowing one point of view in this manner is tantamount to language control. Many rely on the internet to show varying points of view on political subjects, history, economics, Etc.
Some in the progressive mainstream will certainly label this notion as farfetched and even idiotic. But in 2009, the UK government actually banned, famous American talk show host, Michael Savage, from entering into the country due to his commentary.
The host, who is also a New York Time Best-Selling author with millions of listeners, was put on a list with CAIR-Hamas terror leaders and a KKK grand wizard, by UK Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith of Gordon Brown administration. Allegedly it was for his point of view on radical Islam and immigration, but the UK government never actually specified what comments caused the decision to list Savage with terrorists.
Savage is neither a criminal nor a political extremist. His writing and talk show are essentially conservative in nature and warn of the potential destruction of leftist ideologies. He is still currently on the list and banned from entering. The UK taking such a drastic measure is indicative as to how its government views those with dissenting opinions.
Therefore, it should automatically be cause for alarm when the British government wants to “hold Google criminally liable” and force it to pull information off the internet. History has shown that government regulation begets more government regulation. It only serves to deepen bureaucracy and control the masses, leaving little concern for personal liberty.