GOOGLE E' SULL'ORLO DELLO SMEMBRAMENTO PER VIOLAZIONE DELLO SHERMAN ACT. DATO CHE FA PARTE DEL COMPLESSO INDUSTRIALE MILITARE, C'E' DA SPERARCI POCO. MA POTREBBE FAR PARTE DEL COMPLESSO MILITARE INDUSTRIALE SBAGLIATO: QUELLO DI CUI I TRUMPISTI SI VOGLIONO LIBERARE. SE CI DOVESSERO RIUSCIRE, GOOGLE POTREBBE DIVENTARE SOLO IL PRIMO CASO DI UNA SERIE DI SMEMBRAMENTI DI GRUPPI INDUSTRIALI LEGATI AL COMPLESSO MILITARE INDUSTRIALE TOTALITARIO.

tachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

At Reclaim The Net, we don’t rely on invasive advertising that compromises our values. Instead, we’re powered by those who believe in a freer internet — people like you. If you stand for free speech and the fight to reclaim privacy and civil liberties, join us. Become a supporter today. Gain exclusive access to extra content, tutorials, and guides as a thanks for your support. SUPPORTERS Meta’s Paranoia on Trial: FTC Exposes Fear-Driven Anticompetitive Strategy What happens when Silicon Valley’s most powerful executives try to explain their acquisition strategy using the language of fear, panic, and existential dread?  You get a rare, behind-the-scenes look at how billion-dollar decisions are made, not with confidence, but with cold sweats and defensive playbooks.  This isn’t about corporate strategy as usual. It’s about the raw, unfiltered psychology of market dominance: slide decks labeled like doomsday prep kits, emails that read like confessions, and courtroom testimony that turns legal defense into therapy session.  If you want to understand how power really works in tech, and what happens when that power finally gets questioned, this is essential reading. We explore this today. Become a supporter here. Get the post here. Become a Supporter FIGHTING FOR ITS MONOPOLY Google Fights to Keep Its Ad Empire Intact as Feds Push for a Breakup Federal regulators are pushing for a major shake-up in Google’s advertising operations, calling for the tech giant to spin off key parts of its ad tech empire under court supervision. The Department of Justice wants Google to divest its AdX exchange, a central marketplace connecting advertisers with digital publishers, as part of a broader antitrust enforcement effort targeting what the government describes as monopolistic control in online advertising. The proposal, submitted in a legal filing, also urges the separation of Google’s DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), a platform used by websites to manage and sell their ad space. The DOJ contends that both AdX and DFP are core to Google's allegedly unlawful dominance, facilitating behavior that undermines fair competition. Google pushed back strongly in its response, filed May 5, rejecting the notion that breaking up its ad tech stack is necessary or even workable. The company argued that its systems are so deeply embedded in its own infrastructure that transferring the technology would require rebuilding it from scratch for external use. “Divestiture is not as simple as selling either the AdX or DFP source code to a willing buyer,” the filing stated, explaining that the code depends heavily on Google's proprietary environment and cannot function independently. Rather than selling off parts of its ad business, Google proposed a series of behavioral changes it says would resolve the court’s concerns and restore competition. Among the suggested measures: allowing equal access to AdX’s real-time bidding system for competitors managing open web display ads. “The DOJ conceded Google’s proposed ad tech remedy fully addresses the court’s decision on liability,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, in a statement on Tuesday. She added, “The DOJ’s additional proposals to force a divestiture of our ad tech tools go well beyond the Court’s findings, have no basis in law, and would harm publishers and advertisers.” The company also expressed openness to oversight, agreeing to the court’s idea of appointing an external trustee to monitor the implementation of its proposed remedies for up to three years. This legal standoff follows a decision last month by US District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who concluded that Google’s practices in the ad exchange and server markets violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, ultimately to the detriment of advertisers and consumers alike. More: Google’s Monopoly Exposed: How the Sherman Act Took Down a Giant Powerful forces want to silence independent voices online Governments and corporations are working hand in hand to control what you can say, what you can read; and soon, who you are allowed to be. New laws promise to “protect” you; but instead criminalize dissent. Apps and sites deplatform, demonetize, and disappear accounts that step out of line. AI-driven surveillance tracks everything you do, feeding a system built to monitor, profile, and ultimately control. Now, they’re pushing for centralized digital IDs; a tool that could link your identity to everything you say and do online. No anonymity. No privacy. No escape. This isn’t about safety, it’s about power. If you believe in a truly free and open internet; where ideas can be debated without fear, where privacy is a right, and where no government or corporation dictates what’s true; please become a supporter. By becoming a supporter, you’ll help us: Expose online censorship, surveillance, and the digital ID agenda Challenge restrictive laws that threaten free expression Provide independent analysis on the erosion of digital rights Support voices who refuse to bow to pressure from governments or Big Tech We don’t answer to advertisers or political elites.  If you can, please become a supporter. It takes less than a minute to set up, you’ll get a bunch of extra features, guides, analysis and solutions, and every donation strengthens the fight for online freedom. Thank you. >> Become a Supporter Today << . EXPANDING UK Lawmakers Push for Expanded Online Censorship Despite Uncertainty Over Online Censorship Law's Scope At a recent UK parliamentary hearing on social media and algorithms, lawmakers ramped up calls for increased censorship online, despite revealing that they themselves remain unclear on what the existing law, the Online Safety Act, actually covers. The session, led by the Science, Innovation, and Technology Committee, displayed a growing appetite among MPs to suppress lawful speech based on subjective notions of harm while failing to reconcile fundamental disagreements about the scope of regulatory authority. Rather than defending open discourse, members of Parliament repeatedly urged regulators to expand their crackdown on speech that has not been deemed illegal. The recurring justification was the nebulous threat of “misinformation,” a term invoked throughout the hearing with little consistency and no legal definition within the current framework. Labour MP Emily Darlington was among the most vocal proponents of more aggressive action. Citing the Netflix show Adolescence, she suggested that fictional portrayals of misogynistic radicalization warranted real-world censorship. She pushed Ofcom to treat such content as either illegal or misinformative, regardless of whether the law permits such classifications. When Ofcom's Director of Online Safety Strategy Delivery, Mark Bunting, explained that the Act does not allow sweeping regulation of misinformation, Darlington pushed back, demanding specific censorship powers that go well beyond the legislation’s intent. Even more revealing was the contradiction between government officials themselves. While Bunting maintained that Ofcom’s ability to act on misinformation is extremely limited, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch insisted otherwise, claiming it falls under existing regulatory codes. The discrepancy not only raised concerns about transparency and legal  certainty but also highlighted the dangers of granting censorship powers to agencies that can’t even agree on the rules they’re enforcing. John Edwards, the UK Information Commissioner, shifted the discussion toward algorithmic data use, arguing that manipulation of user data, especially that of children, could constitute harm. While Edwards did not advocate direct censorship, his remarks reinforced the broader push for increased state oversight of online systems, further blurring the line between content moderation and outright control over public discourse. Committee Chair Chi Onwurah repeatedly voiced dissatisfaction that misinformation is not explicitly addressed by the Online Safety Act, implying that its exclusion rendered the law ineffective. However, as Bunting explained, the Act does introduce a narrowly defined "false communications" offense, which only applies when falsehoods are sent with the intent to cause significant harm—a standard that is both difficult to prove and intentionally limited to avoid criminalizing protected expression. Onwurah appeared unimpressed by these legal safeguards. Labour MP Adam Thompson pressed Ofcom to go further, asking why platforms weren’t being forced to de-amplify what he described as “harmful content.” Once again, Bunting noted that Ofcom’s mandate does not include blanket powers to suppress misinformation, and any such expansion would require new legislation. This admission did little to curb the committee’s broader push for more centralized control over online content. The hearing also ventured into the economics of censorship, with several MPs targeting digital advertising as a driver of “misinformation.” Despite Ofcom’s limited remit in this area, lawmakers pushed for the government to regulate the entire online advertising supply chain. Baroness Jones acknowledged the issue but offered only vague references to ongoing discussions, without proposing any concrete mechanisms or timelines. Steve Race, another Labour MP, argued that the Southport riots might have been prevented with a fully implemented Online Safety Act, despite no clear evidence that the law would have stopped the spread of controversial, but not illegal, claims. Baroness Jones responded by asserting that the Act could have empowered Ofcom to demand takedowns of illegal content. Yet when pressed on whether the specific false claims about the attacker’s identity would qualify as illegal, she sidestepped the question. Ofcom’s testimony ultimately confirmed what civil libertarians have long warned: the Act does not require platforms to act against legal content, no matter how upsetting or widely circulated it may be. This hasn’t stopped officials from trying to stretch its interpretation or imply that platforms should go further on their own terms, an approach that invites arbitrary enforcement and regulatory mission creep. Talitha Rowland of the Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology attempted to reconcile the contradictions by pointing to tech companies’ internal policies, suggesting that platform terms of service might function as a substitute for statutory regulation. But voluntary compliance, directed by unelected regulators under mounting political pressure, is a far cry from a transparent legal framework. The entire hearing revealed a troubling dynamic: politicians eager to police online speech, regulators unsure of their actual powers, and a legal environment where vague definitions of “harm” are increasingly used to justify censorship by default. The confusion among lawmakers and regulators alike should raise red flags for anyone concerned with due process, democratic accountability, or the right to express dissenting views in an open society. NEW CENSORSHIP EXCUSE Spain Blackouts Prompt EU Push for More Censorship Under "Preparedness Strategy" Citing "Disinformation" Threats These days, no event, incident, or occasion, regardless of its nature, appears to be too big or too small to use as an excuse to promote more censorship in the name of "combating disinformation." Last week, Spain and Portugal lived through an embarrassing episode of widespread electricity blackouts - and the current consensus is that the reason is even more embarrassing: old infrastructure, fraught with its own problems - that are only compounded by endless attempts to work "green" energy sources into it. Trillions of dollars is the figure that experts are mentioning as needed to get the EU's electricity grid up to speed - or rather, balance the reality with the aggressive "progressive" policy pushes so that a similar crisis is averted going forward. But a conversation about these topics is apparently a hard one to have for the EU bureaucracy. Instead, it, through the mouth of Commissioner for Preparedness, Crisis Management and Equality Hadja Lahbib, prefers to effectively misguide, and deflect away from that, and onto the key talking points that are sure to provoke a sense of paranoia among citizens: cyberattacks and supply chain disruptions (as a result of this type of threats). In other words - instead of addressing actual problem(s), the focus is being shifted to how information around them should be best managed, to somehow score public opinion points. Speaking for Spain's El Mundo, Lahbib mentioned the EU Preparation Strategy, and the Union Strategy for Preparation - apparently, her "shorthand" for the formal, and oddly phrased, "EU Preparedness Union Strategy." It is a set of measures meant to "counter foreign information manipulation and disinformation more systematically" by fully using the EU's Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI) toolbox, the censorship law Digital Services Act (DSA), and the censorship initiative - the upcoming European Democracy Shield. So, let's talk about the state of the EU's electrical grid, why it is the way it is, who is responsible, and what concrete steps are being taken to remedy the massive problem. Judging by Hadja's statements - let's not. Let's just accept that the system is rotten - and then, simply how to "survive" the crises. She decided to take a "victory lap" regarding the supposed relevance of the Strategy in situations like this, and specifically something called "the 72-hour survival kit." It has to do with things like floods and fires - but those references take the backseat to "threats to our phones, computers, banks, supply chains, raw materials, and even the media we consume." KILLING PRIVACY UK Lawmakers and Regulators Target End-to-End Encryption and Smaller Messaging Platforms in Final Committee Hearing on Social Media "Harms" UK's Science, Innovation, and Technology Committee's fourth and final meeting on social media misinformation and harmful algorithms saw renewed attacks against end-to-end encryption, and platforms like Telegram and Signal. And once again, representatives of the authorities tried to pin the blame for the Southport riots on social media and apps that are outside the scope of what is regulated as Big Tech. More: UK’s iCloud Encryption Crackdown Explained: Your Questions Answered on Apple’s Decision and How it Affects You During the session held on April 29, the Committee sought answers about "social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms" from the regulator Ofcom, the Information Commissioner (ICO), and the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). More: London Mayor Sadiq Khan Cites Southport Stabbing to Justify Targeting Online & "Conspiracy Theories" and "Misinformation" Labour MP Paul Waugh focused on end-to-end encrypted messengers, specifically the one provided by Facebook, choosing to oddly refer to the secure online technology as "a challenge" that needs to be "combated" - and suggest it is basically a tool of enabling child sex abuse online. Addressing Ofcom Director of Online Safety Strategy Delivery Mark Bunting, Waugh wanted to know what the regulator was doing "to combat that challenge." Bunting replied that encryption has been "identified as one of the areas of risk that companies have to take account of" and called it "a problem." And while stating that encryption provides "enormous benefits in terms of privacy and security to users," and adding that for those reasons, it is "very highly valued by users" (but not so much the authorities?) - Bunting went on to state that, "it does mean that a lot of the tools that we want to see companies use, including the AI (harms) detection tools, aren't operable in encrypted environments." "We think it's a challenge for the industry. We have been clear that we're expecting the industry to do more work on techniques that are being developed to detect harmful activity in encrypted environments," the Ofcom official said, as well as that this was "one of the priority areas of work" for his technology team. More: UK Gov Pushes Censorship, Blaming Online Content for Southport Killings Labour MP Emily Darlington used the meeting to go after smaller platforms that are also providing users with end-to-end encryption - and try to forge a link between their use, and the riots that engulfed the UK last summer after the Southport murders of schoolchildren. Telegram was among those singled out, despite it having over one billion users. Nevertheless, it was "lumped in" with Signal, 4chan, 8chan, etc., all with the goal of connecting the dots Darlington sees between "small apps" and "far-right extremist activity" - the implication being that this is where such activity flies under the regulatory radar, and what Ofcom can enforce. English politicians will never let us forget that Orwell was their compatriot, so, addressing Mark Bunting, Darlington mentioned that Ofcom has something called, "a small high harms platform task force." The response was that this was "a really important area" for Ofcom, while DSIT Director for Security and Online Harm Talitha Rowland said her team was "really concerned" about "small but risky sites (that are) a real danger to UK citizens" - while praising Ofcom's "small but risky" task force. Reclaim The Net is funded by the community. Keep us going and get extra benefits by becoming a supporter today. Thank you. Become a Supporter Thanks for reading, Reclaim The Net