CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

In a brazen move that reeks of authoritarian control, the UK government is pushing plans to seize influence over YouTube's recommendation system. Their goal is to prioritise content from the BBC, and other state backed propaganda machines, while burying independent journalists and creators who dare challenge the official narrative.

This isn't subtle nudging - it's direct engineered suppression, which they're dressing up as "protecting democracy" from so-called disinformation. As public trust in legacy media plummets, the establishment's response is to rig the game rather than earn back credibility.

YouTube itself has warned creators about the proposals. The platform alerted users that new rules could force it to give privileged positioning to approved outlets, limiting growth for everyone else and reshaping what millions see daily. Independent voices who built audiences by speaking truth to power now face algorithmic exile.

Look at this appalling state censorship.

Labour now want to seize control of YouTube's algorithm.

They want YouTube to artificially boost the BBC and Channel 4's content, and suffocate independent journalists and producers.

The BBC has been biased to pro-mass migration,... pic.twitter.com/QbwrRNjkSo

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) July 5, 2026

GB News' Alex Armstrong labelled the move "an act of pure tyranny, designed to control you, your family and your friends on an industrial scale."

'An act of pure tyranny, designed to control you, your family and your friends on an industrial scale. They want you to be sheep.'@AlexArmstrong shares his outrage at government plans to push 'propaganda' and state controlled media to the top of your social media feed. pic.twitter.com/kZ2cQ6ykmS

— GB News (@GBNEWS) July 4, 2026

The Free Speech Union described the move as "beyond dystopian."

This is beyond dystopian. https://t.co/fnaA4FOm5A

— The Free Speech Union (@SpeechUnion) July 5, 2026

People fled to platforms like YouTube and X precisely because of the BBC's documented biases on mass migration, Net Zero, and more - biases even internal BBC reports have acknowledged. Now, the government wants to drag that failing model into your feed by law.

Technology and free speech lawyer Preston Byrne slammed it as the British government seeking to "influence and control the marketplace of ideas."

'It's the British government seeking to influence and control the marketplace of ideas.'

Technology and free speech lawyer Preston Byrne reacts to government plans to push 'propaganda' and state controlled media to the top of your social media feed. pic.twitter.com/CSWuyVWaqw

— GB News (@GBNEWS) July 4, 2026

Lord Toby Young highlighted the absurdity in The Spectator: calling the targeted media "trustworthy" is a misnomer when people have already abandoned it. Forcing platforms to promote it won't restore trust - it will confirm the desperation.

In my latest @Spectator column, I ridicule the Government's Media Green Paper and its proposal that social media platforms should be forced to boost 'trusted' media sources, like the BBC.

"Isn't it a bit of a misnomer to describe the media content the government wants people to...

— Toby Young (@toadmeister) July 4, 2026

The Free Speech Union also linked the development to Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy's exit from X, where she cited threats to democracy all while her department advances state-favoured content rules.

Lisa Nandy has quit X. Yes, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has decided that, rather than challenge so-called misinformation and disinformation, she would rather vacate the stage.

She has dubbed the platform a threat to democracy and free speech.

Since when... pic.twitter.com/n5MrboDwup

— The Free Speech Union (@SpeechUnion) July 4, 2026

It's the same playbook we've seen over and over: label dissent as dangerous, then legislate your preferred sources into prominence.

The Mercian News pointed out the BBC's own admission that only around 30% of the public trusts national news organisations, with over 50% trusting social media more. Forcing exposure won't fix that - it exposes the contempt for audience choice.

The BBC is so trusted that the government has to use the law to force you to pay for it and now has to use the law to force you to watch it. https://t.co/BAmXtFGZce

— The Mercian (@TheMercianNews) July 5, 2026

Even some on the left, like the Labour Digital Rights Network, have criticised the hypocrisy of engineering a sanitised internet while claiming to fight Big Tech.

? The government's new media consultation is a blatant attempt to seize control of social media algorithms and enforce a "state-approved" news feed.

Under the guise of promoting "trustworthy news", @DCMS is exploring legislative options to force platforms like YouTube to give... pic.twitter.com/J8HOlOgyon

— Labour Digital Rights Network (@LabDRN) July 5, 2026

? The government's new media consultation is a blatant attempt to seize control of social media algorithms and enforce a "state-approved" news feed.

Under the guise of promoting "trustworthy news", @DCMS is exploring legislative options to force platforms like YouTube to give... pic.twitter.com/J8HOlOgyon

— Labour Digital Rights Network (@LabDRN) July 5, 2026

The post continues...

The hypocrisy is staggering. Just days after @lisanandy proudly announced she was abandoning @X because it "favours abuse and misinformation", her department is now trying to artificially engineer a sanitised internet elsewhere. We cannot afford to let the state become the sole arbiter of truth online. Yes, we are highly critical of Big Tech's toxic algorithms that monopolise our attention and harvest our data to generate profit. But the solution to surveillance capitalism is robust regulation, algorithmic transparency, and data protection - not a state-dictated media feed.

Resistance is already brewing. YouTube's warnings have sparked calls for pushback. Creators and users are urged to respond to the government's consultation, which closes August 31. Ben Graham suggested a practical defence: block the BBC, ITV, and Channel 4 channels to starve the forced promotion of engagement.

If you think the algorithm is being reshaped, the simplest response is to take control of your own feed.

Block the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 if you don't want them in your recommendations.

They can't push content you don't engage with. https://t.co/zpOYPWJGAL

— Ben Graham (@BenGrahamUK) July 4, 2026

Of course, the government could, via it's regulator Ofcom, simply mandate that these sources cannot be blocked and must be injected into people's feeds. They could also employ a more subtle manipulation of the algorithm to ensure it happens, regardless of any blocking.

Preston Byrne argued Google should draw a hard line - threatening to close its UK data centre and operations rather than comply with foreign censorship demands. American tech shouldn't bend to UK overreach.

Google has exactly one data center in the UK.

All it has to do is threaten to close it and pull out its personnel. That is the answer to foreign censorship, it is the only answer, and the longer Big Tech ignores the option the more cancerous foreign regulation will become. https://t.co/YANnrNtkoc

— Preston Byrne (@prestonjbyrne) July 4, 2026

The government frames this as voluntary cooperation with legislation as backup, especially during unrest. Critics see it as the thin end of the wedge toward a Ministry of Truth, where "approved" sources drown out scrutiny of open borders, policy failures, and elite consensus.

This isn't about quality journalism - it's about control. When legacy outlets lose the audience on merit, the state steps in to mandate relevance. Independent creators built YouTube's vibrancy; now they're collateral in a war on wrongthink.

Britons deserve better than algorithmically enforced propaganda. The pushback must be fierce: block, respond to consultations, support platforms that resist, and back politicians who reject this surveillance-state creep. Freedom of information is too vital to surrender to failing institutions desperate to cling to power.

This UK initiative does not stand alone. Similar moves are advancing in lockstep across the continent as governments seek greater leverage over information flows.

Germany has pursued measures to force social media platforms to boost state-aligned content and sideline dissenting material under the banner of "public value."

The EU's Democracy Shield framework has drawn sharp criticism as a vehicle for mass censorship that effectively ends open discourse under the guise of protecting democracy.

In France, President Macron has pushed aggressive censorship proposals widely described as a Ministry of Truth power grab.

The pattern is unmistakable: governments leveraging regulatory power to privilege official or state-funded sources while algorithmically demoting alternatives.

The BBC prioritization scheme fits into a rapid succession of UK measures that collectively tighten state influence over digital space and public narrative.

The under-16s social media ban has been exposed as a monumental pretext for total digital surveillance infrastructure.

Telegram founder Pavel Durov warned that the policy represents the digital iceberg that could sink the free internet.

Separate reporting revealed the UK government maintains a dedicated "thought police" unit aimed at controlling the mass migration narrative.

Further proposals would empower authorities to block "false information" during crisis events, creating an official Ministry of Truth mechanism.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has separately called for a government social media disinformation unit, adding another layer of official narrative enforcement.

Advocates insist elevating BBC content will help users encounter more "reliable" information. The claim collapses under even cursory examination of the broadcaster's recent track record.

The BBC has repeatedly been accused of sinking to new lows on accuracy and impartiality.

Its former news director stated that trans bias and progressive orthodoxy drove her departure.

Additional controversies include a high-profile fake news editing scandal that prompted a $10 billion lawsuit from President Trump.

Further examples involve portrayals of Islamic child slavery in Afghanistan as somehow necessary, biased handling of Islamist issues in Britain, and presenter conduct that drew sharp rebukes from figures like John Cleese.

 

Mandating algorithmic favoritism for any single outlet, especially one with the BBC's baggage, will not restore trust. Alternative platforms continue to grow, and Community Notes-style transparency tools already expose manipulation faster than official gatekeepers can suppress it.

Governments that distrust citizens to navigate information without state curation reveal more about their own insecurities than about any genuine disinformation crisis.

The free exchange of ideas, even uncomfortable ones, remains the only proven defense against real propaganda.

These latest European and British maneuvers represent the opposite impulse: centralized narrative control dressed up as public protection.

Citizens on both sides of the Atlantic have seen this playbook before and are increasingly unwilling to play along.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Authored by Nick Corbishley via NakedCapitalism.com,

UK-based readers may recall the moment almost exactly three years ago when the word “debanking” entered the mainstream British English lexicon. The prestigious London-based private bank Coutts had just decided to close Nigel Farage’s bank account due to his unsavoury political views and alleged Russian connections. That decision turned out to be very costly.

Almost immediately, Farage did what Farage does best: he whipped up a massive media frenzy. In next to no time two senior banking scalps had been claimed: those of Dame Alison Rose, the CEO of Coutts’ parent bank and “Big Four” lender, Natwest (formerly known as the Royal Bank of Scotland) and Coutts’ chief executive Peter Flavel.

Within a month, Natwest’s share price had slumped 8%, wiping £1 billion off its market cap, much of which was being propped up with public funds, and generating juicy returns for short-selling hedge funds. As we reported at the time, the resulting scandal drew much-needed public attention to a long-standing but accelerating trend — the “de-banking” of people and organisations with politically inconvenient views:

[T]his is hardly a one-off event: as I reported a couple of weeks ago, banks on both sides of the Atlantic are increasingly debanking their customers, often without explanation. I gave the example of California-based writer, activist, and social and political commentator Elad Nehorai, whose political views and ideals could not diverge more from those of Nigel Farage. Yet he, too, had his account at Bank of America, his bank of many years, summarily closed with no apparent warning or explanation…

Without a bank account, it is almost impossible to participate in the economy. And it is getting more difficult as cash becomes harder and harder to access and use. As Alex Lo writes for South China Morning Post, “Banking is a fundamental utility like water and electricity, and that’s precisely why democratic societies are increasingly turning to its use as a method of censorship and repression.”

However, the resulting government inquiry concluded that customers were not being “debanked” for political reasons. As a result, not only has debanking continued but debanked customers now face the prospect of being blocked from setting up new accounts at other banks, as the Telegraph reported on Monday:

Banks are planning to block “debanked” customers from setting up accounts with other lenders, potentially leading to innocent people being effectively locked out of the financial system, The Telegraph can reveal.

Lobby group UK Finance is developing a platform that will allow banks to share data on their customers where they detect “markers of economic crime”.

Lloyds, Barclays and Revolut have already started sharing data about customers, leading to accounts being frozen or closed, The Telegraph understands, following a pilot in 2024.

The data-sharing platform will build on that pilot to make a UK-wide system, which could automatically bar people from opening another account.

But concerns have been raised that thousands of innocent customers and businesses who have been debanked unfairly could be barred from opening up an account with another bank, effectively leaving them locked out of the financial system.

The latest victim of the debanking trend is the left-wing news website The Canary, which has accused the Lloyds Banking Group of “withholding a substantial amount of our money”  after nearly a decade of use. The news outlet — which brands itself as “radical working-class media” — says “Lloyds has not explained why it has taken this action… despite multiple communications from us”.

In a statement on Tuesday, the Canary speculated about the possible reasons behind Lloyds’ decision, including its anti-Zionist and pro-Palestine stance:

Whilst we do not currently know the reasons behind our debanking, we cannot afford to be naive about this.

We do know that multiple other politically engaged people have suffered similar actions by other banks in recent times. It is not lost on us that powerful banks are able to restrict the financial activity of anti-Zionist and pro-Palestine organisations and individuals.

It is an outrage that the Canary has been unceremoniously dropped into financial instability with no notice or explanation from Lloyds.

Starmer’s Last Attack

It would hardly come as a surprise the attack was in response to The Canary’s pro-Palestine sympathies. The UK government has done everything within its not inconsiderable powers to criminalise pro-Palestine, anti-genocide activism, including by scrapping the ancient right to trial by jury. Through its new National Security Law, the outgoing Keir Starmer government seeks to bulldoze literal thought crime legislation into law — in Orwell’s native United Kingdom.

I need to explain something very important to you.

The law that the govt used to arrest me, Section 12(1A) — the first ever use against a journalist — is a very short line. It is vague on purpose. And that is the exact line they have copied into the new "National Security Bill"

— Richard Medhurst (@richimedhurst) July 1, 2026

You can say something that is 100% factual, but if it paints what they deem a "proscribed organization" — even one that has never harmed the UK — in a "good" light, you can get 14 years in prison. (That's also copied from the Terrorism Act).

Anything you say can be twisted.

— Richard Medhurst (@richimedhurst) July 1, 2026

An article in The Canary explains just how dire a threat the new National Security Law poses to journalism and political dissent, describing it as “one last power grab” by Keir Starmer’s outgoing government:

As I am sat here writing this, there’s a sense of terror kicking in. I’m a journalist. It’s my job to be in the know about foreign affairs. At the Canary we pride ourselves on bringing people the news that the mainstream doesn’t dare. But this terror is absolutely nothing compared to what other people must be feeling.

This radicalised weaponisation of new legislation will hit marginalised communities so first and hardest. Journalists and community workers with direct, lived and painful connections to global conflict zones are facing a massive legal trap. If a reporter so much as quotes an entity that the home secretary has designated as a threat, they face immediate prosecution.

Civil liberties groups warn that the law will grant the Home Office absolute power to decide who is allowed to speak. And by leaving the definition of ‘assisting a designated body’ vague, the state has created a total monopoly on the narrative. It’s very much going to be, follow their way and toe the line, or go to jail, it seems.

Indie media outlet Zeteo warned of the severe danger of this new power-grab. The outlet warned that journalists face immediate arrest simply for conducting public interest interviews with banned groups. People will only get one side of the story. There will only be one narrative fed to us… and it will be the government’s.

The timing of Lloyds Bank’s debanking of The Canary is also curious, coming just two months after it announced the launch of a daily left-wing print tabloid — and what’s more, one that defends Palestinian rights. Following an injection of cash last year from used car and property website founder Cecil Hetherington, Canary director Steve Topple hailed the new tabloid as an alternative to the corporate press.

After its debanking, the Canary says it is now in a “financially precarious situation” and does not know when “money that Lloyds is holding will be returned” or how it will affect “our ability to get another bank account in the future”.

“The immediate effect has been that we have been unable to pay any staff or contractors,” Topple told Novara Media. “We have a large team, and all of them are now extremely distressed and in limbo. Many of them are marginalised people and it has hit them very hard. We are trying our best to mitigate the situation and have so far received much-appreciated support from members of the public.”

Lloyds’ actions have already triggered a storm of protests from across the political spectrum.

This is a disgraceful move by @LloydsBank

Be under no illusion, it's an attack on all independent media in UK that doesn't tow the government line

If Lloyds doesn't sort this immediately, a widespread boycott campaign should ensue https://t.co/VbdqcKcI9i

— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) July 1, 2026

Corbyn told the Canary that the anti-democratic attempt to silence an independent news site was "a very dangerous road"

Via @skwawkbox https://t.co/rgxQhu6HmI

— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) July 2, 2026

The Canary has been debanked by Lloyds.

Debanking is one of the most pernicious forms of cancellation that an individual or organisation can face — something the FSU is only too familiar with.

Lloyds has provided no explanation for its decision and has not told The Canary when… https://t.co/Y2YKbFC1wu

— The Free Speech Union (@SpeechUnion) June 30, 2026

A Growing Phenomenon

The first major target of debanking in the UK, well over a decade ago, were members of the British Muslim community, particularly those involved in Pro-Palestinian activism. But unlike with Farage, their plight was met with total radio silence in the mainstream media, as the veteran journalist Peter Oborne recounts in the video below.

Peter Oborne Exposes Nigel Farage Banking Bigotry @OborneTweets pic.twitter.com/sir2vSAPlq

— Double Down News (@DoubleDownNews) July 11, 2023

By the time Farage had lost access to Coutts’ banking services, in the summer of 2023, banks in the UK were closing nearly one thousand accounts daily, with just over 343,000 closed in 2022, compared to about 45,000 in 2017.

Following the Farage affair, the Financial Conduct Authority conducted an investigation into banks’ debanking practices, the conclusion of which was that banks had not been closing customers’ accounts for political reasons. Farage described the outcome as “farcical”.

In the US, recent victims of debanking include Scott Ritter, the former United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) weapons inspector who is a prominent critic of US and Western imperialism. In January, his bank of 26 years, Citizens’ Bank, closed all of his accounts, including his and his wife’s joint accounts with their daughters, without offering an explanation, as he recounts in the first minutes of the following interview with Judge Napolitano:

In a letter to Ritter Citizens Bank apparently that not only was it under no obligation to divulge the reasons for closing his accounts but that Citizens’ policy actively prevents any disclosure of any information concerning the decision to close the account. As Cato Institute notes, this silent treatment often has to do with confidentiality laws:

However, these are not laws meant to protect the financial privacy of customers. Rather, this confidentiality is to prevent citizens from finding out they are under criminal investigation. For example, reports filed under the Bank Secrecy Act are restricted so heavily that banks cannot share the details of the reports or even admit that a report exists.

While Ritter does not know the exact reasons for his debanking, he suspects that someone in the FBI, fully armed with the “totality of [his] banking transactions”, had “tipped off” Citizens Bank about “suspicious activity” that resulted in Citizens Bank issuing an SAR [Suspicious Activity Report].”

Ritter believes that donations he had received and subsequent cash withdrawals before his three trips to Russia in 2025, which thanks to US and EU sanctions is disconnected from the Western economy, may have triggered the move. According to Ritter, the “purpose of “de-banking” is to harass a targeted individual,” even in the absence of evidence pointing to any criminal activity.”

The reasons for an account closure, while often a mystery to the customers affected, often include operational reasons. Put simply, a financial institution chooses to close the account of a customer because the reputational risks of being associated with that client are simply too high. However, political or ideological motivations appear to play a part in some prominent cases.

The most clear-cut example of this was the Canadian government’s decision, in February 2022, to invoke the emergencies act to compel banks to seize the accounts of the freedom convoy protesters who had blocked several key border crossings. According to the minutes of a meeting between Canada’s Economy Minister, Vice President and WEF board member Chrystia Freeland and senior bank executives the day before the act was invoked, one CEO flagged concerns that if banks were forced to close accounts, it could be seen as the sector “being used as an arm of the government” or even “a political weapon.”

In 2022, Paypal banned the accounts of the UK-based Free Speech Union, its founder Toby Young and his online publication, the Daily Sceptic, for purportedly breaching its policies against hate speech. Worse still, the fintech giant surreptitiously slipped a line into its terms of service granting itself the right to fine customers $2,500 for spreading misinformation. When the news got out, provoking a huge public backlash, PayPal claimed it had all been a big mistake.

Of course, as NC readers EssCetera and Rev Kev pointed out in comments to a previous post, Paypal has a long, storied history of doing this sort of thing, going all the way back to its freezing of Wikileaks’ account in 2010. And banks in the US have been closing down the accounts of workers in the porn industry since at least 2014 as part of “Operation Chokepoint”, which targeted certain undesirable but legal business sectors (h/t Michaelmas).

From “Debanking” to “Civil Death”

If there’s one fate worse than being debanked, it is suffering through the ordeal of “civil death”. Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian occupied territories, became subject to US sanctions roughly a year ago that cut her and her family off not only from US banking but also travel and tech.

In Albanese’s case, it was clear to her why she was being put under constraints normally reserved for narco-barons and terrorists: she had just published a UN report denouncing the more than 60 (largely Western) multinational corporations that are allegedly complicit in, and profiting from, Israel’s military occupation of Gaza.

“This fury [came] because I poked the bear,” she said. “Not in one eye, in both eyes.”

?? “The moment I pointed to the fact that there are businesses who are profiting from it, yes, I get sanctioned.”

The first UN expert in 80 years to be sanctioned by the U.S. explains why she now faces a U.S. travel ban, frozen accounts, no ability to bank anywhere, cancelled… https://t.co/ia3WLhmyV7

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) December 11, 2025

In the clip below, Albanese explains (in French), as she fights back tears, the extent to which she has been barred from participating in basic civil life since the imposition of US sanctions against her:

“I can’t make payments with my working credit card nor can I do transfers; my health insurance has been cancelled, I can’t make hotel reservations… I’m being treated as if I were Pablo Escobar. “

UN official Albanese described financial and insurance restrictions imposed on her following her public statement characterizing Israeli actions as genocide.

"I can't make payments with my working credit card nor can I do transfers; my health insurance has been canceled, I can't… pic.twitter.com/zAH7paGjxm

— HatsOff (@HatsOffff) June 30, 2026

Other victims of civil death, this time at the hands of EU authorities, include the German journalist Hüseyin Dogru and Jacques Baud, a retired Swiss colonel and former senior strategic analyst for NATO. In both cases, the justifications were openly ideological. Baud was accused of of acting as a “mouthpiece” for pro-Russian propaganda and disseminating “conspiracy theories” about the war in Ukraine while Dogru was targeted due to his reporting on Gaza.

In the case of Dogru, both his wife and mother were also targeted with sanctions (h/t vao). In neither case were criminal charges imposed, and because the sanctions are defined as an administrative measure within the EU’s bureaucracy, neither Baud nor Dogru can appeal to a court of law in their respective countries of residence (Belgium and Germany). This is the very definition of Kafkaesque.

Worse still, these sorts of processes could soon be automated almost across the board, as I warned in my 2022 book Scanned:

Combining [central bank] digital currencies with digital IDs while phasing out, or even banning, the use of cash would grant governments and central banks the ability not only to track every purchase we make (and made in the past) but also to determine what we can and cannot spend our money on. They could also prevent certain “undesirable” people from buying anything. Anyone with a blocking notice attached to their digital identity would “thus be unable to do many of the most basic things independently,” says [German financial journalist Norbert] Häring.

Incidentally, the digital euro has already become a de facto legal reality, after the European Parliament (EP)’s economic and monetary affairs committee gave a green light to the eurozone central bank digital currency (CBDC) last week. Presumably, even many members of our highly informed readership will have been unaware of this fact since it all occurred against a wall of near-total media silence.