Share this post:
No sooner does This Site publish an article explaining why Labour’s right wing needs the Left as a moral compass than a perfect example rocks up on Twitter (sorry… X).
Responding to criticism of the Online Safety Act, suggesting that – far from its stated purpose of protecting children from harmful material – it is being used to suppress legitimate political discussion, he posted:
I responded as follows – and it is his reply that sparked the dogpile:
There were sensible responses that addressed the issue at hand, and a few that were less kindly-worded but still on point:
One person even roped in X‘s AI – Grok – to provide context:
Whether it was impartial or not is now also the subject for discussion.
There’s more:
In fairness, I have seen a message that supports the OSA:
And there was an awful lot of flat-out abuse as well, that I will not re-publish here.
It got to the point where I felt moved to post again:
He has not replied. Someone else did, suggesting that I may have been naive to think Bryant would act in good faith. More on that thought below…
The exchange is more than an isolated Twitter spat — it captures something much deeper about the current culture of Labour politics: an instinct not to confront power, but to manage perception; not to engage with dissent, but to deny its legitimacy.
What is the Online Safety Act actually doing?
The Online Safety Act was sold to the public as a protective measure — to guard against harm, hate, and disinformation.
In practice, it is increasingly being cited by platforms, institutions, and even law enforcement as grounds to suppress controversial but entirely lawful political expression.
-
Examples include:
-
Palestinian solidarity activists having content removed or accounts throttled.
-
Climate protest groups facing surveillance and online restrictions.
-
Sharp critiques of UK or allied foreign policy being flagged as “harmful” or “misleading”.
Civil liberties organisations like Big Brother Watch, Open Rights Group, and Article 19 have all raised concerns.
Their warning is simple: the Act is vague, broad, and dangerously open to abuse.
Bryant’s response: political gaslighting?
In this context, Bryant’s response isn’t just wrong — it’s a form of gaslighting.
When a government minister tells you censorship isn’t happening, even as activists are being banned, shadowbanned, or surveilled, what he’s really doing is asking you to disbelieve your own eyes – to trust the system, even as it suppresses voices of dissent.
This is more than policy misjudgement. It’s a cultivated mode of engagement: deny, deflect, delegitimise.
And it speaks to a wider authoritarian reflex within Labour — one that treats critics as irritants and threats rather than as necessary correctives in a democracy.
The moral void Simon Wren-Lewis identified
Simon Wren-Lewis’s recent writing – as discussed in the article I mention above – strikes at the heart of this phenomenon: the Labour Right, having sidelined the Left, now lacks a moral compass.
It cannot speak clearly about injustice — because it no longer recognises injustice unless it feels safe to do so.
The Left, he argues, wasn’t an electoral liability, as its opponents claim; it was Labour’s conscience.
Without it, the party risks drifting into managerialism devoid of ethics, and soft authoritarianism dressed up as pragmatism.
Bryant’s response, then, isn’t anomalous — it’s illustrative.
Denialism as a party-wide strategy
This culture of denial isn’t limited to the Online Safety Act. Consider:
-
The party’s refusal to name genocide in Gaza.
-
Its silence on sweeping anti-protest laws.
-
Its lack of defence for civil liberties under Tory clampdowns.
-
Its complicity with surveillance rhetoric targeting Muslim communities and dissenters.
Rather than oppose authoritarianism, Labour under Starmer often seeks to inherit and sanitise it.
Denialism becomes the strategy — for moral rot, institutional failures, and complicity with repressive state power.
The politics of silence
When a minister denies that repression is occurring, and their supporters attack those who point it out, what kind of politics does that leave us with?
What happens when speaking the truth about censorship gets you vilified — and denying it gets you promoted?
We’re told everything’s fine.
That there’s no censorship, no drift, no problem.
But the room is on fire.
And the people setting it alight want applause for keeping their hands clean.
I do hope Bryant looks into what the Online Safety Act is really enabling – if only to prove his critics wrong about him.
But he hasn’t replied to me again, and I fear he will prove them right in the worst possible way.
Share this post:
Chris Bryant and the Online Safety Act: “This is fine” said the MP in the burning room
Share this post:
No sooner does This Site publish an article explaining why Labour’s right wing needs the Left as a moral compass than a perfect example rocks up on Twitter (sorry… X).
Responding to criticism of the Online Safety Act, suggesting that – far from its stated purpose of protecting children from harmful material – it is being used to suppress legitimate political discussion, he posted:
I responded as follows – and it is his reply that sparked the dogpile:
There were sensible responses that addressed the issue at hand, and a few that were less kindly-worded but still on point:
One person even roped in X‘s AI – Grok – to provide context:
Whether it was impartial or not is now also the subject for discussion.
There’s more:
In fairness, I have seen a message that supports the OSA:
And there was an awful lot of flat-out abuse as well, that I will not re-publish here.
It got to the point where I felt moved to post again:
He has not replied. Someone else did, suggesting that I may have been naive to think Bryant would act in good faith. More on that thought below…
The exchange is more than an isolated Twitter spat — it captures something much deeper about the current culture of Labour politics: an instinct not to confront power, but to manage perception; not to engage with dissent, but to deny its legitimacy.
What is the Online Safety Act actually doing?
The Online Safety Act was sold to the public as a protective measure — to guard against harm, hate, and disinformation.
In practice, it is increasingly being cited by platforms, institutions, and even law enforcement as grounds to suppress controversial but entirely lawful political expression.
Examples include:
Palestinian solidarity activists having content removed or accounts throttled.
Climate protest groups facing surveillance and online restrictions.
Sharp critiques of UK or allied foreign policy being flagged as “harmful” or “misleading”.
Civil liberties organisations like Big Brother Watch, Open Rights Group, and Article 19 have all raised concerns.
Their warning is simple: the Act is vague, broad, and dangerously open to abuse.
Bryant’s response: political gaslighting?
In this context, Bryant’s response isn’t just wrong — it’s a form of gaslighting.
When a government minister tells you censorship isn’t happening, even as activists are being banned, shadowbanned, or surveilled, what he’s really doing is asking you to disbelieve your own eyes – to trust the system, even as it suppresses voices of dissent.
This is more than policy misjudgement. It’s a cultivated mode of engagement: deny, deflect, delegitimise.
And it speaks to a wider authoritarian reflex within Labour — one that treats critics as irritants and threats rather than as necessary correctives in a democracy.
The moral void Simon Wren-Lewis identified
Simon Wren-Lewis’s recent writing – as discussed in the article I mention above – strikes at the heart of this phenomenon: the Labour Right, having sidelined the Left, now lacks a moral compass.
It cannot speak clearly about injustice — because it no longer recognises injustice unless it feels safe to do so.
The Left, he argues, wasn’t an electoral liability, as its opponents claim; it was Labour’s conscience.
Without it, the party risks drifting into managerialism devoid of ethics, and soft authoritarianism dressed up as pragmatism.
Bryant’s response, then, isn’t anomalous — it’s illustrative.
Denialism as a party-wide strategy
This culture of denial isn’t limited to the Online Safety Act. Consider:
The party’s refusal to name genocide in Gaza.
Its silence on sweeping anti-protest laws.
Its lack of defence for civil liberties under Tory clampdowns.
Its complicity with surveillance rhetoric targeting Muslim communities and dissenters.
Rather than oppose authoritarianism, Labour under Starmer often seeks to inherit and sanitise it.
Denialism becomes the strategy — for moral rot, institutional failures, and complicity with repressive state power.
The politics of silence
When a minister denies that repression is occurring, and their supporters attack those who point it out, what kind of politics does that leave us with?
What happens when speaking the truth about censorship gets you vilified — and denying it gets you promoted?
We’re told everything’s fine.
That there’s no censorship, no drift, no problem.
But the room is on fire.
And the people setting it alight want applause for keeping their hands clean.
I do hope Bryant looks into what the Online Safety Act is really enabling – if only to prove his critics wrong about him.
But he hasn’t replied to me again, and I fear he will prove them right in the worst possible way.
Share this post:
you might also like
Workplace battleground: Labour and Tories at war over employment
A&E fears fall on deaf ears
‘Abolition of the Bedroom Tax’ Bill is launched in Parliament