The drama unfolding in once Great Britain! Here we are in early 2026, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is playing the role of the stern magician, waving his regulatory wand at X (formerly Twitter) with threats of a full-on ban. The pretext? His government's outrage over Grok, generating non-consensual deepfake images, including some truly unsavoury ones. As if that's not enough, the Online Safety Act is being turbocharged to criminalise such AI mischief, with Starmer declaring, "If X cannot control Grok, we will." It's all framed as protecting the vulnerable, but sceptics smell a rat: Is this really about safeguarding, or is it a convenient excuse to muzzle a platform that's become a thorn in the side of power? After all, X under Elon Musk, has been a haven for unfiltered discourse, from exposing government gaffes to amplifying voices that legacy media ignores.
The article from American Greatness (link below), paints a grim picture: Britain's sleepwalking into authoritarianism, with over 10,000 annual arrests for social media posts under "Orwellian laws," the cancellation of local elections, and a taxpayer-funded game that brands migration concerns as extremism. Starmer's regime, it argues, is uncomfortable with accountability, viewing platforms like X as "democratic pressure valves" that must be sealed shut. And recent developments back this up — Starmer's put "all options on the table," including blocking X entirely, while Ofcom launches investigations and fast-tracks fines or "business disruption measures." Even the US is chiming in, with warnings that UK officials could face travel bans if they follow through, turning this into an international spat.
But let's indulge our speculative flair: If Starmer pulls off this trick and bans X outright, what's his next encore? After all, in the grand illusion of "progressive" governance, one vanishing act leads to another. Picture this as a satirical magic show, where the audience (that's us, the plebs) claps along until we realize our freedoms are the ones disappearing up the sleeve.
Act One: The VPN Vanish. Banning X is child's play — plenty of folks will just hop on a VPN to access it from afar. But Starmer, ever the vigilant illusionist, won't stand for such sleight-of-hand from the masses. Next up? A crackdown on VPNs themselves, branded as "tools for evading safety regulations." Expect new laws requiring ISPs to block these digital escape hatches, with fines for users caught tunnelling to freer shores. After all, if you're hiding your IP to tweet freely, you must be up to no good — perhaps plotting to question the latest net-zero mandate or the wisdom of open borders. Bonus points if they tie it to "protecting children from foreign disinformation," turning privacy into a public enemy.
Act Two: The Platform Purge. With X out of the picture, why stop there? Telegram, Rumble, Gab — any app that dares host "harmful" content (read: dissenting opinions) could be next on the chopping block. Starmer's already got the Online Safety Act as his magic hat, empowering Ofcom to silence "lawful but unpopular speech." Imagine a cascade: First, deepfakes get the boot, then "misinformation" on elections, climate, or gender ideology. Before long, even Meta or YouTube might face ultimatums to adopt UK-style censorship algorithms, or else join X in the digital gulag. And let's not forget the irony — Musk's critics on X are howling about free speech suppression, but if the ban hits, their soapboxes vanish too.
Act Three: The Thought Police Encore. Here's where it gets truly dystopian — and hilariously over-the-top, like a bad sci-fi flick. With online speech tamed, Starmer might turn to offline enforcement. Pub chats monitored via AI-powered CCTV? Mandatory "hate speech" training for all citizens? Or how about a national "extremism score" app, inspired by that creepy government game, where expressing scepticism about mass migration dings your social credit? We've already seen arrests for tweets and even armed police harassing comedians like Graham Linehan. Next trick: Expanding this to books, podcasts, or whispers in the wind. And for the grand finale? Banning entry to critics like Eva Vlaardingerbroek, who's already been turned away at the border for her anti-Starmer stance. If free speech is the rabbit, Starmer's pulling it out of the hat only to make it disappear forever.
Of course, this is satire with a sting — exaggerating to highlight the slippery slope. But the pattern's real: Governments uncomfortable with scrutiny often start with "safety" and end with control. Musk's X has been a bulwark against that, hosting everything from viral exposés to Grok's occasional naughtiness (now paywalled, by the way, in a bid to placate the censors). If Starmer bans it, he's not just targeting my X — he's signalling that dissent is the real threat. The broader implication? A chilling effect across the West, where other leaders might follow suit, turning the internet into a sanitised echo chamber.
In the end this could be a wake-up call. Free speech isn't a trick — it's the foundation of democracy. If Starmer pulls this one off, the audience might not applaud; they might revolt. After all, as the American Greatness piece warns, "What Britain needs is total, not selective freedoms." Let's hope the curtain doesn't fall just yet.
https://amgreatness.com/2026/01/17/if-britain-bans-x-how-far-will-it-go-to-block-free-speech/