- https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/12/29/irish-govt-to-push-for-eu-to-ban-anonymous-social-media-accounts/
- https://extra.ie/2025/12/28/news/simon-harris-social-media-regulations
- https://www.euractiv.com/news/ireland-eyes-eu-social-media-age-checks-laws-for-2026-council-presidency/
The left-wing Irish government has vowed to push for the European Union to prohibit the use of anonymous social media accounts in what may set the ground for another battle over free speech with the Trump administration in the United States.
Ireland will take over the rotating Presidency of the Council of the European Union for a six month term starting in July and looks set to push for more restrictions on the internet, namely the imposition of ID-verification for social media accounts. The move would effectively end anonymity on social media, which critics have warned will hinder dissidents from speaking out against power structures.
Speaking to the Extra news outlet, Deputy Prime Minister Simon Harris said that anonymous accounts and so-called disinformation are "an issue in relation to our democracy. And I don't just mean ours. I mean democracy in the world."
"This isn't just Ireland's view. If you look at the comments of Emmanuel Macron... of Keir Starmer... recently, in terms of being open to considering what Australia have done, if you look at the actions of Australia, you know this is a global conversation Ireland will and should be a part of," he said.
Harris also said that Dublin will consider following Australia's lead in banning children under the age of 16 from accessing social media.
"We've age requirements in our country for so many things. You can't buy a pint before a certain age. You can't drive a car before a certain age. You can't place a bet before a certain age," the Deputy PM said.
"We have a digital age of consent in Ireland, which is 16, but it's simply not being enforced. And I think that's a really important move. And then I think there's the broader issue, which will require work that's not just at an Irish level, around the anonymous bots."
It comes in the wake of the U.S. State Department announcing sanctions against five British and European figures for their roles in silencing Americans and American companies.
Among those to face a visa ban sanction was former European Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton, who served as the EU's censorship czar until last year and who spearheaded the bloc's Digital Services Act.
The draconian set of restrictions demand that large social media companies self-censor their platforms of so-called "hate speech" and "disinformation" or face the prospect of Brussels imposing a fine of up to six per cent of their global revenue. Earlier this month, the Digital Services Act was used to fine Elon Musk's X €120 million ($140 million).
Breton had previously threatened to use the DSA, which allows for the bloc to ban social media firms from operating on the continent, against Musk for conducting a live interview on X with then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump in the lead up to last year's elections. The Frenchman warned that the interview could result in the "amplification of harmful content" that may "generate detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security".
Announcing the sanctions against Breton and others, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last week: "For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by turgid on Friday January 02, @02:39PM (10 children)
So we give up our anonymity, Farage gets elected and then throws us all in jail for our anti-Farage posts. Nice. Do these people think these things through?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Touché) by janrinok on Friday January 02, @02:49PM (1 child)
Apparently not...
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Friday January 02, @04:44PM
Are you saying that restrictions on anti-social media is not a good thing?
For the sake of humanity get rid of it all.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 3, Insightful) by corey on Friday January 02, @07:43PM (1 child)
On The plus side, they can actually enforce minimum user age limits. That’d be good for society.
Another downside is marketing, it’s a boon for the social media (advertising) companies: their use data is more accurate and proven. More targeted advertising and hence more revenue for the social media (advertising) companies.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 03, @02:12AM
>they can actually enforce minimum user age limits. That’d be good for society.
Is it, though? Is the naivete of Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny really all that beneficial to future generations, or it it just familiar and therefore comfortable to ours?
The world is out there, Childhood ends - sooner or later. Trying to keep the kiddies ignorant/innocent at the website provider level seems a bit late to me.
Yes, restrict screen time. Yes, reinforce face to face social learning and interactions. But once they are "on the portal" - are you really doing them any favors by creating airs of mystery, exclusivity, maturity and other false halos around: smoking, drinking, sex and social media?
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by VLM on Friday January 02, @08:13PM
They certainly do, and see this as a feature, not a bug.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Friday January 02, @10:59PM (2 children)
They don't have a choice but to preempt the inevitable: The national security threats from hybrid warfare and terrorism are so severe that if they can't effectively stop radicalization and filter out the existing radicals through mass surveillance, they'll be forced to get the job done with troop deployments, deportations and checkpoints all over the place. And, while it's going to be necessary anyhow, the politics only allows the right to start with deportations and aggressive policing since the left's voter base won't accept the necessity until exhausting all other options even if those other options amount to political self-immolation.
compiling...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by turgid on Saturday January 03, @11:18AM (1 child)
The national security threats from hybrid warfare and terrorism are so severe
I really want to tell you some important information but I can't for all kinds of reasons. Suffice to say, the main threat to our societies, by at least an order of magnitude, is from the far right. The threat is internal. I don't think you want to believe that, judging by many of your previous comments and I really can't say any more. But that's where we are. I don't want to make an enemy of you, I don't want to troll you and I want to keep things civil.
We have another huge problem here in the UK and that is the so-called Peace Dividend. We naively disarmed over the last 20 years because we saw much reduced threats from Russia and China. So we cut back out armed forced to almost nothing. We have enough ammunition for a fortnight. We have no air defences worth a damn. We have two lame duck aircraft carriers and a nuclear deterrent which isn't. It fails to launch.
Meanwhile, China is conducting military exercised off Taiwan with its advanced armed forces and Russia/Belarus are waging a sub-threshold war, in addition to the war in Ukraine, in the Baltics, Scandanavia and Poland, not to mention in the waters around the UK. Read all about it [ukdefencejournal.org.uk].
Then we have idiots like Farage leading the polls, set to become our next Prime Minister, who wants to privatise our NHS, take away our Human Rights [goodlawproject.org] and is a great admirer of Trump and Putin (but he's gone quiet on that bit).
The thread is from the far-right, hard-right, radical-right, whatever you want to call them, and people drip-fed the rhetoric [theguardian.com] from the information war over the last 15 years or so, people so misinformed and frightened they'll vote for the very thing their own country stood up to in 1939-1945.
Deportations will solve nothing, unless we deport the likes of Tice [open-britain.co.uk], Farage [theguardian.com] and Yaxley-Lennon [theguardian.com]. However, they're British and we don't have any colonies these days. Maybe they'll flee to Dubai [thelondoneconomic.com] like Tice's girlfriend [youtube.com]?
Those are the real dangers, that and Climate Change, that these people want to pretend doesn't exist.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Touché) by RamiK on Saturday January 03, @03:15PM
Then you have nothing to complain about since the Irish are clearly not far-right so this must be that very necessary countermeasure to this pan-EU far-right threat you've been told about by your politicians. Right?
Look, this is just another "end the free-market immigration experiment" moment where politicians face reality with a spin and their voters are too embarrassed to accept the reality that the other party (well, the other, other party since the other party was part of the problem) was right.
Said the Scot... Who was a referendum away from full devolution (into the EU's Islamic Autonomous Oblast but never mind that now) just a few years ago before the "colonial" Supreme courts stopped it... Wait, come to think of it, you want the headcount and Farage wants the Muslims gone... Ok Baldrick, I have a most cunning plan...
Jokes(?) aside, my point is that this bill only can be reasoned to be targeting national security threat / threats that affect Europe as a whole and the far-right reps are probably going to support it. So, this "it's about the far-right" narrative doesn't hold up.
compiling...
(Score: 3, Touché) by sneftel on Saturday January 03, @02:18PM (1 child)
Oh dear. I can’t tell whether you think Nigel Farage is Irish, Ireland is part of the UK, or the UK is part of the EU. Can you clarify, so I can make sure to disdain you for the appropriate reason?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday January 03, @03:26PM
Can't you see the bigger picture?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Friday January 02, @02:57PM (11 children)
"European Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton, who served as the EU's censorship czar "
TFA (supplied by Breitbart) correctly quotes his actual fromer post (EU Commissioner for Internal Market) and then describes him as the "censorship czar". There is no such post. If Americans do not like the EU then they do not have to trade here. But, if they do choose to do business here, then they should follow EU rules. It is exactly the same for European companies who wish to trade in the USA. They have to comply with local laws.
In fact, to comply they often create new companies in the US. That is what US companies are also being asked to do in Europe.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02, @06:41PM (10 children)
The obligation to obey the rules is on the buyer that is in Europe, not the seller who is not. And besides that, I see no obligation to obey rules that are capricious and arbitrary.
(Score: 4, Touché) by janrinok on Friday January 02, @06:53PM (8 children)
Have you said that publicly in the USA recently? How would you describe the tariffs?
So what about those companies who have servers in the EU but insist that they remain US businesses and therefore free to do as they wish? Data that is collected in Europe should stay in Europe and be protected by EU laws.
If you want to say that the those companies do not have to obey our laws, we would like the right to vote in US elections so that we can exercise our control over how the US manages those companies. I'm fairly sure that this is not a new suggestion and it was the cause of trouble a few hundred years ago..
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02, @07:16PM
Tyranny is tyranny. What I posted applies to the US also, and everywhere else. The only problem I see at this point is the lack of resistance, and lack of a silver bullet that could make all censorship technically impossible, or at least unprofitable.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 02, @09:11PM (6 children)
Not based in the EU seems a really good reason to me not to have to obey EU law.
Are they breaking the law with those servers? If not, then not EU jurisdiction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02, @10:24PM (1 child)
Yes, the buyer in the EU is breaking the law, not the seller
(Score: 3, Insightful) by deimtee on Saturday January 03, @03:20AM
If the EU laws say servers in Europe can't send the data overseas, then the owners of those servers are breaking EU law if they send data overseas. Legally it doesn't matter where the owners are, although it can make enforcement more difficult. Easy enough to seize local servers though if the company is a bit recalcitrant.
The difficulty comes when the main servers are not in the EU. Logging into oversees servers and sending data becomes the user's choice (So SoylentNews should be fine) but the big companies want local servers for speed and latency. Where do you draw the line between a local server sending data overseas (subject to the law), and a simple router that is just sending data where it was requested to (not subject to the law) ?
It's obviously going to be at some level of processing, but some routers compress data before sending. Personal opinion would be as soon as it's a dedicated "line", or doing more than simple compression.
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(Score: 4, Informative) by janrinok on Saturday January 03, @07:44AM (3 children)
I made it quite clear. Google, Amazon, et al all own their own servers in Europe. The servers are owned and operated by US companies. The are doing business in the EU.
Yes.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04, @12:07AM (2 children)
Then if they remove those servers out of the EU, the problem is solved. But if the EU doesn't want its subjects to access their services overseas, then the EU has to spend the money to put up their own firewall, not Google, Amazon, et al. What happens in the EU is no longer their problem or their issue
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Sunday January 04, @05:12PM (1 child)
You don't seem to "get it". It's not even the *servers*. They are doing *business* in EU. And if they are doing *business* in EU, they have to follow EU laws. *period*
If they do not do *business* in EU, then they do not have to follow EU laws.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04, @06:13PM
Don't care. They are not in the EU. They are doing business with a customer in the EU. EU law does not apply to anybody on the outside. It only applies to the traders on the inside of their own borders. As far as I'm concerned, no law shall extend beyond the borders. Such things require an actual treaty, an international agreement with the country hosting the service. Only then would you have an actionable case.
(Score: 2) by Ingar on Saturday January 03, @11:17AM
If the law were some customizable package where you can ignore the rules you find to be capricious or arbitrary, I'd be paying a lot less taxes.
Love is a three-edged sword: heart, soul, and reality.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pTamok on Friday January 02, @04:41PM (4 children)
What is social media?
Would, for example, an Irish site hosted in Ireland that was a clone of SN count? And if not, why not?
Anonymity protects freedom of expression, and allows people to state truths that are unpalatable to government, and others in power. Those views can be right-wing and repressive, or they can be the sunlight that disinfects. Banning or trying to regulate anonymity is a bad idea. Unfortunately, those that would legislate for morality are not amenable to informed argument.
I do not deny that anonymity generates problematic behaviour. Many years ago, I knew socially someone who worked in a specialist law enforcement department that handled investigation of what is now known as CSAM use and distribution. They could not go into detail about their work, but it underlined the depravity of some people who believe themselves anonymous. Nonetheless, the political and societal consequences of lack of anonymity are so profound that I believe that it should be protected, and other ways found to deal with abuses of anonymity. I contend that a society without possible anonymity is worse for those that live in it that one with. Where there is no anonymity, the powerful can repress with almost no consequences. This is partly why powerful forces are in favour of wanting anonymity removed, and are happy to support people who want that removal for other 'moral' reasons.
This is not a popular argument to make: I am accused of not taking into account abused children and minorities: abused by anonymous speakers. It's easy for me to say that their (the victims') abuse is 'a price worth paying' as I am not being abused myself. I don't say that: such victims should be supported, and abuse deleted after it has been sent or published. There are ways of dealing with abuse of anonymity without removing the ability to be anonymous. It is not easy, and could well be expensive, and not 100% effective: but the ability to speak truth to power is precious.
OK, rant over.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 02, @09:33PM (3 children)
We don't need enforced identities, we need clear distinctions between anonymous and identified speech.
If you are claiming to have a certain identity, that should be clear, unambiguous, and easily verifiable (not some dumbass colored icon that shows you gave the site some arbitrary amount of money.)
If your identity is "anonymous" - that, too, should be clear, unambiguous. Maybe it's connected to a posting history. Maybe that posting history is long, or short. Whatever it is, readers of the content seeing the poster's "identity" should have a quick way to evaluate the source of the information.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03, @02:10AM (2 children)
Nice pipe dream...
> Maybe it's connected to a posting history.
And how long will be, before bad actors (perhaps state supported) learn how to create or fake these histories?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 03, @02:16AM (1 child)
>And how long will be, before bad actors (perhaps state supported) learn how to create or fake these histories?
They've been doing it for 10+ years already - I wouldn't be surprised if we had state supported actors in chat rooms in the 1980s - we certainly had FBI undercover at KKK meetings in the 1970s.
There's plenty of conspiracy theory out there (some of it true, no doubt) that actors are using AI to generate "relatable" posting histories then twisting them to the particular message they want to convey. This will only continue to grow, but the sites keeping the histories can work toward making it harder to fake.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04, @12:06AM
Undercover or attending because they were members and wanted to?
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02, @04:45PM (21 children)
Only because I want to see how well we can circumvent this crap.
And any government that wants it is NOT "left-wing", not by a long shot. Authoritarianism is always right-wing, by definition
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fraxinus-tree on Friday January 02, @05:56PM (13 children)
I see, you never lived in eastern Europe. Authoritarianism is universal.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02, @06:27PM (12 children)
Exactly, it is indeed. That makes it all right-wing. Distinguishable only by degree, not character. There are no left-wing governments, anywhere. But the people who put their faith in lip service seem to disagree.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pTamok on Friday January 02, @07:13PM (9 children)
Governments can be authoritarian no matter their political stripe. It's the undemocratic application of power, and has been performed in the past by monarchs without political parties, leaders of ostensibly communist regimes, and members of fascist regimes, and everything in-between and to the sides. The spectrum is authoritarian/democratic/consensual, not left-wing/centrist/right wing. Oversimplifying is unhelpful. There are other spectra as well.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02, @07:25PM (8 children)
Authoritarian (even by a majority) = right-wing
Consensual/cooperative/voluntary/anarchism = left-wing, probably something that can't exist in nature, but still worth striving for, but we're not even trying.. too busy listening to dance tracks and k-pop
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 02, @10:39PM (7 children)
Dystopia is not synonymous with "right wing". Your stance is so damned silly, no one can argue with you seriously. The Soviet was pretty damned dystopian. Chinese communism was equally dystopian, until they adopted some of the West's values. They have risen from their former dystopia, to something less authoritarian and draconian, but most of us still couldn't live there comfortable. Various other authoritarian regimes have ranged right across the left/right spectrum.
You almost have to be an American, because you seem to only see one, single axis or the political spectrum. Few, if any Europeans are that naive. Others around the world have their own views on the political spectrum. 1/4 of the world's population cares little about left/right, they only care that you submit. Care to guess which part of the population that might be?
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03, @05:14AM (6 children)
That is because they are wrong, and have nothing to argue outside their emotional beliefs.
So what? They are "dystopian" because they are right-wing authoritarian dictatorships. The dystopia is in calling them "left". It's Orwellian and just plain false. There is absolutely no such thing as left-wing authoritarianism, it is truly and utterly impossible for such a thing to exist. It's like saying freedom is slavery
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Saturday January 03, @09:26AM (5 children)
You have a point. Every government where the majority of members is right-handed tends towards an authoritarian dystopia. We should actively campaign for government solely by people who are left-handed.
Do you have a newsletter to which I could subscribe?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday January 03, @11:08PM (2 children)
Such a government would be ... sinister.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday January 04, @12:13AM
Would you rather a government that was Dexter? [wikipedia.org]
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Sunday January 04, @10:16AM
> > We should actively campaign for government solely by people who are left-handed.
> Such a government would be ... sinister.
Badum-tish! Well done!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04, @05:25AM (1 child)
Yeah, try that in India...
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Sunday January 04, @10:25AM
> > We should actively campaign for government solely by people who are left-handed.
> Yeah, try that in India...
Or indeed anywhere with Muslim culture - although Islam is less restrictive about use of the left hand than many people think. It makes sense to use only one hand for unhygienic activities and the other for eating, so the habit may well be (possibly Arabic) cultural, embraced by Islam.
Watching my Indian colleagues tear off pieces of Naan bread with one hand, and neatly eating curry with the torn-off part was instructive. I did not, and do not, have the dexterity (see what I did there) to do that. I love curry, but it tends to be a whole-body experience: I have learned to use napkins or wear clothes that don't show the turmeric stains. Turmeric, chocolate, and tomato can easily permanently stain things.
(Score: 5, Touché) by khallow on Friday January 02, @09:14PM (1 child)
Now that we've established that you're using personal definitions, how about you either use definitions that allow you to think about the subject rather than 1984 it.
(Score: 2, Funny) by pTamok on Saturday January 03, @09:32AM
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
(Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Friday January 02, @09:09PM (5 children)
So the Irish government is right-wing? Then, why they are the at odds with the Trump administration?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by khallow on Friday January 02, @10:19PM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03, @05:32AM
Hell, that's easy... It's because the man and his sycophant supporters are lunatic sociopaths, it's perfectly normal for regular people to be at odds with him. And it's obvious that Ireland is less right-wing than Trump. But pushing for laws like this is definitely right-wing, not "left" at all.
This whole thread wouldn't exist if that phrase "left-wing" was not put there in the summary or the article, it's offtopic clickbait trolling, by... oh, look at that, breitbart. Say no more.. say no more
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03, @02:31PM (2 children)
Starmer is very right wing too. That's why he cracked down on social media. /s
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04, @05:42AM (1 child)
Well, yes, Labour, unable to maintain its facade, is incompetent right, and Tories are crazy right, very similar to the Americans. But I can see how people would be confused.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04, @03:23PM
Can anybody explain to me why people react so harshly to unfiltered truths? Do they take it personally or what?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03, @02:28PM
Real communism has never been tried before. Wait till you find out that nazis are actually economically left. They are simply non-marxist socialists. China is straight up fascist at this point. How very right wing.
Every "side" has an authoritarian arm. For the right wing that would be monarchists and traditionalists. Kumbaya leftism never lasts. People disagree or don't want to be collectivized and inevitably it has to be forced. They care about what you say as much as most dictators. Leftism demands true believers. Otherwise nobody would care what randos on twitter say or who they "hate".
PS: Can't wait for the post on maduro to this site to see all the vatniks crashing out.