Olives @olives@qoto.org

Apparently, they are working on fixes for this instance.

Marija Manojlovic. Runs a "think of the children" org based in New York. Largely popped out of thin air with a bunch of suspicious impossible sounding promises.

An enigma who interjects with misleading "think of the children" takes and largely advocates for authoritarianism and human rights violations. An unreasonable person.

She was largely funded by a far right extremist U.K. Home Office.

She has provided partial funding to one fundamentalist "think of the children" group.

She has provided partial funding to a new "Finnish" "think of the children" group which popped out of thin air and engaged in dodgy practices to promote authoritarianism. Curiously, she ignored every other group that was already there.

Also, curiously, there is a (long) inactive account on a fediverse instance accused of being trollish with a similar name.

With any luck, you will never have to deal with her, however, if you ever have to, then that should give you an idea of what she is about.

When I was investigating an international network of far right extremists on social media before, I noticed someone saying she was a British academic who was part of it.

Gemma Ahearne.

She was up to things like directing harassment at people due to some conspiracy theory (i.e. Q like ones). That is the main reason she appeared on my radar.

She likes to associate with a notorious far right grifter who peddles conspiracy theories about various groups of people and misleading nonsense. He might dehumanize broad groups of people because of a personal issue with one particular person.

She shared content saying that someone should be locked up for a decade I think for blocking a road as part of a protest, although not when a protest is nationalistic in nature, of course.

She self-identifies as a "Christian".

Derek thinks he is a "smart" guy, so I'll go over why his "buddies" are problematic.

In essence, they are all people who don't actually have any relevant expertise, and are just there to pull some words out of thin air to justify his nonsense.

Also, they might be far right extremists, work primarily with far right extremists, have been openly threatened by far right extremists, worked for far right extremists, or multiple of these categories.

They should probably be abolished.

Honestly, the whole idea of OBEs is archaic, and a lot of the time, they're just given to someone who someone in the British Government likes, not so much for merit.

I've spent enough time writing about this particular actor though, and there doesn't appear to be anything new going on (although, this doesn't mean that you shouldn't push back against any nonsense), so I might not comment on them a lot.

Derek appeared to be promoting censorship a couple of weeks ago.

He was a bit on the vaguer side by shifting the responsibility onto others (largely the predecessor and far right extremists and other bad actors).

However, I wouldn't count on him being good.

Susie didn't even operate legally. She was a vigilante who broke the law but which the British Government never bothered to pursue.

Susie Hargreaves.

Her successor "Derek" should also be scrutinized. He appears to be promoting censorship while pretending that he is saving the children.

At the end of the day, if someone is grifting off saving the children, while opportunistically censoring a large amount of legitimate content, such as online porn, then maybe there should be consequences for that abuse.

It's worth remembering that her org was known to mislead people, so as to push particular opinionated and human rights violating pieces of policy.

Next, Prime Minister Keir Starmer should revoke her OBE which was granted by the previous far right extremist government.

Looks like Censor Susie has stepped down but her vigilante outfit is probably still problematic.

Sometimes, the home feed just stops loading new posts and it might take hours to resume. Opening a new tab seems to fix it.

Making a post sort of works with occasional 500s.

I don't follow these that closely, it's something which appeared on my radar.

Well, people have a right to protest, so if someone is saying that a protest shouldn't be held because one particular person in the crowd might have done something, then that is concerning.

Seeing the government described as the "good guys" when talking about surveillance. What if the government are the bad guys though?