When does legitimate regulation become political vendetta? This question sits at the heart of the British government’s extraordinary threat to ban X, a platform used by millions, over failures that plague the entire internet. The answer, it seems, lies not in the technology itself but in who controls it and what they have said about power, especially regarding Censorship.
Grok, the AI chatbot developed by Elon Musk’s xAI and integrated into X, has become a factory for nonconsensual sexual imagery. Research by deepfake analyst Genevieve Oh found the tool churning out approximately 6,700 sexually explicit images per hour during a 24-hour period in January 2026. Users discovered they could circumvent safeguards with absurdly simple prompts, instructing the AI to “undress” uploaded photographs or place subjects in “invisible bikinis.” The Internet Watch Foundation confirmed that criminal imagery of children, apparently created using Grok, had appeared on the platform.
This is appalling. It is unlawful. It demands immediate action. No argument there.
The implications of Censorship in this context are profound, raising questions about freedom of expression and the responsibilities of tech companies.
But here is where the story becomes less comfortable for those who imagine themselves on the side of righteousness. The scale of Grok’s output, while genuinely horrifying, exists within a vastly larger ecosystem of exploitation that operates with minimal government interference. At least 85 dedicated “nudify” websites and applications currently operate online, many accessible through simple Google searches. They advertise on Meta’s platforms. They charge between five and thirty dollars per month. They process millions of images annually. Research published in late 2025 found these sites collectively produced approximately 79 similar images per hour, meaning Grok’s output is roughly 85 times higher than other top services combined.
Yet when Meta’s Instagram and Facebook were found hosting hundreds of advertisements for these nudify tools in mid-2025, promoting the ability to “see anyone naked” and directing users to apps available through Apple’s App Store and Google Play, the government’s response was measured. Regulatory. Proportionate. Meta removed the ads after CBS News investigation. Life moved on. No minister stood before cameras declaring the platforms “disgraceful” or “not to be tolerated.” No threats of total bans. No invocation of national emergency powers.
The pattern holds across platforms. Snapchat, according to multiple studies, remains the preferred distribution channel for nonconsensual intimate imagery among teenagers. The reasons are structural: ephemeral messaging, screenshot notifications easily circumvented, and a user base skewing young. DeepSwap, an AI face-swapping service operating from addresses variously listed as Dublin and Hong Kong, was used by a Minneapolis man to create sexualized deepfakes of more than 80 women using photos scraped from Facebook. The discovery sparked local legislative efforts but no existential threat to Meta, DeepSwap’s hosting providers, or the payment processors enabling the transaction.
This is not an argument for inaction. It is an observation about selective enforcement. When the state possesses the power to effectively ban a communications platform used by millions, the principle guiding that power matters more than the immediate target. Either the creation of nonconsensual sexual imagery is an emergency demanding sweeping action across the entire digital ecosystem, or it is a serious problem requiring targeted, proportionate regulation. It cannot be both, depending on who owns the platform in question.
Here we have the arithmetic of enforcement. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall told Parliament that Ofcom should provide updates “in days, not weeks” regarding potential action against X. She confirmed the government’s willingness to back Ofcom in obtaining court orders that would compel internet service providers to block the platform entirely. This represents the nuclear option under the Online Safety Act, deployed precisely six times since the law’s passage. The speed and certainty with which ministers discussed this possibility, the public nature of their threats, and the apocalyptic language employed all suggest something beyond routine regulatory enforcement.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the situation “disgraceful,” “disgusting,” and “not to be tolerated,” telling Greatest Hits Radio that he wanted “all options on the table.” When X limited Grok’s image generation to paying subscribers who must provide verified identity information, Downing Street described this as “insulting to victims of misogyny and sexual violence,” claiming it “simply turns an AI feature that allows the creation of unlawful images into a premium service.”
This framing is revealing. Restricting access to verified, paid users who can be identified and prosecuted is not a perfect solution, but it is precisely the kind of friction-based intervention that experts recommend for reducing harm from generative AI tools. It is also considerably more robust than measures implemented by most nudify services, which typically require only an email address and payment information from providers with minimal identity verification. Yet the government dismissed it as insufficient theatre.
The timing compounds the suspicion. Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s Chief of Staff and the architect of his rise to power, was a founding board member of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, an organisation established in 2018 as Brixton Endeavours Limited before rebranding. McSweeney left the CCDH board in April 2020, two days after Starmer became Labour leader, to take up his current role. The organisation’s founding was funded through McSweeney’s Labour Together think tank, a vehicle explicitly designed, in his own words, to “move the Labour party from the hard left” by undermining Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.
Documents leaked to journalists Paul Thacker and Matt Taibbi in October 2024 revealed internal CCDH priorities for early 2024. Among them: “Kill Musk’s Twitter.” The phrasing appeared in multiple internal documents. CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed later characterised this as shorthand for pressuring advertisers to withdraw support and pushing for regulatory action that would damage X’s business model. In December 2025, the US State Department imposed visa sanctions on Ahmed for what Secretary of State Marco Rubio called “organised efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetise, and suppress American speech.”
CCDH’s work has targeted social media platforms for content moderation failures, focusing particularly on vaccine misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change denial. It has also campaigned against specific individuals and media organisations, successfully pressing for the deplatforming of conspiracy theorist David Icke and lobbying advertisers to withdraw from outlets including Breitbart, The Daily Wire, and Zero Hedge. According to Paul Holden’s investigation in “The Fraud: Keir Starmer, Morgan McSweeney and the Crisis of British Democracy,” CCDH and its sister campaign Stop Funding Fake News (now hosted by CCDH) were “incubated using resources” from Labour Together. Holden notes that while both organisations “represent themselves as non-partisan campaigns,” they have disproportionately targeted left-wing media supportive of Corbyn, particularly The Canary, alongside right-wing outlets.
The connections between McSweeney, Labour Together, CCDH, and Starmer’s government are matters of public record, not conspiracy. They demonstrate a pattern of coordinated action across ostensibly independent organisations to shape political outcomes through pressure on digital platforms and media organisations. That McSweeney resigned from CCDH in 2020 does not erase this history. It contextualises the present.
The question is not whether Grok’s failures warrant serious regulatory attention. They do. The question is whether the intensity, speed, and threatened scope of government action reflects genuine concern about online safety or something more calculated. When ministers who showed limited urgency about nudify apps on Meta’s platforms suddenly discover an appetite for emergency measures against X, when they dismiss meaningful safety improvements as “insulting,” when the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff has documented historical connections to organisations explicitly committed to damaging X’s business model, reasonable people may wonder about proportionality.
This is where defenders of the government’s position will argue that context matters less than outcome, that quibbling over selective enforcement distracts from the urgent need to protect victims. They are wrong. The rule of law depends entirely on consistent application. Regulatory power that bends toward political convenience today will bend again tomorrow, potentially toward targets these same defenders consider illegitimate. Once you have established that threatening to ban major communications platforms is an acceptable response to failures that pervade the internet, you have normalised a tool that will not remain in the hands of those you trust.
Free speech is not an abstract principle. It is the mechanism through which democratic societies identify and correct abuses of power. Platforms matter because they provide the infrastructure for public conversation, however imperfect. When states acquire the practical ability to silence platforms that displease them, and when they exercise that ability selectively based on ownership and editorial stance, the formal existence of free speech protections becomes decoration. The substance has already been compromised.
Regulation is necessary. The Online Safety Act provides a framework for holding platforms accountable for illegal content. Ofcom has legitimate powers to investigate, fine, and compel changes. The creation of nonconsensual sexual imagery, whether through traditional photography or AI manipulation, should be criminalised comprehensively, with particular severity for images depicting children. Platforms should face meaningful consequences for systemic failures to prevent and remove such content. Payment processors and advertising networks that enable the economics of exploitation should be subject to coordinated enforcement action.
But banning an entire platform, used for political discourse, journalism, emergency communication, and countless other legitimate purposes, because its AI chatbot shares a failure common to dozens of other services, while those other services face no comparable threat, is not regulation. It is power dressed in the language of protection.
The UK is heading down a very dark path. Over 12,000 people were arrested in 2023 alone under communications offences for social media posts. Thirty arrests per day for messages causing “annoyance,” “inconvenience,” or “anxiety.”
The Labour government did not enter office promising to restore integrity to British politics. That was the marketing. The reality, evident within months, tells a different story: systematic suppression of dissent through mechanisms that would make authoritarian regimes envious.
Multiple journalists detained under terrorism legislation for reporting on Palestine. Justice Secretary David Lammy proposing to strip the right to jury trial from 75% of Crown Court defendants, limiting this ancient safeguard to only murder, rape, and manslaughter. A former MP and leader of a British political party was arrested and detained at Gatwick Airport. George Galloway and his wife were detained by counter-terrorism police, a stark reminder that in Starmer’s Britain, the machinery of the surveillance state operates with chilling efficiency against political opponents as well as journalists and even comedians.
The former MP was stopped by officers under Schedule 3 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act after arriving from Moscow via Abu Dhabi. The legislation allows authorities to stop, question, search and detain individuals at borders to determine if they have engaged in “hostile activity,” a conveniently elastic definition that can apparently stretch to cover any political position the government finds inconvenient.
The threat to ban X is not an aberration. It is the pattern made explicit.
Human Rights Watch released its damning assessment in January 2026: the Labour government has taken “a deeply alarming direction on protest rights” and is adopting “protest-control tactics imposed in countries where democratic safeguards are collapsing.” The government not only refused to repeal Tory anti-protest legislation described as “deeply troubling” by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, it defended it in court and expanded it. Five Just Stop Oil activists received prison sentences of two to five years merely for joining a Zoom call to plan a protest. When courts called these sentences “manifestly excessive,” they reduced them marginally. The message was clear: planning peaceful protest is now treated as conspiracy.
Journalist Richard Medhurst was arrested at Heathrow under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act in August 2024 for “expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation.” He was held for nearly 24 hours, his journalistic equipment seized, access to a lawyer denied. The charge related to his coverage of Palestine. In October 2024, counter-terrorism police raided the home of Asa Winstanley, associate editor of The Electronic Intifada, seizing his devices under Operation Incessantness. Sarah Wilkinson was arrested in her home. The International Federation of Journalists condemned these arrests as “apparent misuse of anti-terror legislation.” Not a single mainstream British newspaper covered the raid on Winstanley’s home. The silence was instructive…
The government proscribed Palestine Action in July 2025. Since then, at least 2,300 people have been arrested for showing support. The organisation’s crime? Direct action against arms manufacturers supplying weapons used in Gaza. Sixteen members remain in custody, most on remand without conviction. This is the new Britain: expressing solidarity with proscribed organisations, planning protests, posting messages that cause “anxiety,” standing silently with signs outside abortion clinics, reporting on occupied territories. All now punishable by arrest, prosecution, imprisonment.
Freedom House downgraded the UK’s internet freedom score from 5 to 4 in 2025, citing the “proliferation of criminal charges, arrests, and convictions concerning online speech, including speech protected under international human rights standards.”
This is not hyperbole. It is documentation. Morgan McSweeney, the architect of Starmer’s rise and now his Chief of Staff, co-founded the Center for Countering Digital Hate, an organisation whose leaked internal documents listed “Kill Musk’s Twitter” as a priority. McSweeney’s Labour Together think tank, designed explicitly to destroy the Corbyn left, pioneered the tactics now deployed across the British state: suppression disguised as safety, censorship marketed as responsibility, authoritarian control rebranded as protecting the vulnerable. The same methods that targeted left-wing media outlets like The Canary now target X. The same apparatus that undermined democratic socialism within the Labour Party now undermines democratic discourse across Britain.
The threat to ban X is personal, political, and precedent. It represents the fusion of state power with factional interest, the subordination of civil liberties to political convenience, the transformation of regulatory authority into an instrument of control. If it succeeds, if a government can effectively silence a major communications platform because its owner criticises power and its AI tool shares failures common to the entire industry, then the principle is established. The tool exists. It will be used again. Against different targets, under different pretexts, toward the same end: limiting the spectrum of acceptable opinion while permitting lively debate within those ever-narrowing bounds.
We are not watching the first serious test of whether Labour’s government believes its own rhetoric about democratic norms. We are watching the answer. The arrests speak. The imprisoned protesters speak. The detained journalists speak. The restricted juries speak. The threatened platforms speak. They say, with clarity that should terrify anyone who values liberty: this Labour government is Labour in name only. It has become the instrument of precisely the authoritarian project it once claimed to oppose. And it shows no sign of stopping until every avenue of meaningful dissent has been legislated, prosecuted, or intimidated into silence.
When governments treat peaceful protest as conspiracy, journalism as terrorism, and platforms as enemies, democracy has already fallen. Only the paperwork remains.
Support Independent Journalism Today
Our unwavering dedication is to provide you with unbiased news, diverse perspectives, and insightful opinions. We're on a mission to ensure that those in positions of power are held accountable for their actions, but we can't do it alone. Labour Heartlands is primarily funded by me, Paul Knaggs, and by the generous contributions of readers like you. Your donations keep us going and help us uphold the principles of independent journalism. Join us in our quest for truth, transparency, and accountability – donate today and be a part of our mission!
Like everyone else, we're facing challenges, and we need your help to stay online and continue providing crucial journalism. Every contribution, no matter how small, goes a long way in helping us thrive. By becoming one of our donors, you become a vital part of our mission to uncover the truth and uphold the values of democracy.
While we maintain our independence from political affiliations, we stand united against corruption, injustice, and the erosion of free speech, truth, and democracy. We believe in the power of accurate information in a democracy, and we consider facts non-negotiable.
Your support, no matter the amount, can make a significant impact. Together, we can make a difference and continue our journey toward a more informed and just society.
Thank you for supporting Labour Heartlands
