In a move that has sparked alarm among civil liberties advocates, the Labour government in the United Kingdom is reportedly advancing plans to deploy artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor social media for what it deems “concerning” content.
According to a recent article from the Free Speech Union (FSU), this initiative involves a £2.3 million contract awarded to Faculty AI by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT).
The goal ? To develop a sophisticated system capable of trawling through online posts to detect potential threats to “public safety” and “national security.” While the government frames this as a necessary step to counter disinformation and foreign interference, critics warn it could herald a chilling new era of state-sponsored censorship.
The Counter Disinformation Data Platform: Scope and Ambiguity
At the heart of this initiative is the Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP), a tool originally developed under the auspices of the Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU), now rebranded as the National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT). The platform is designed to identify “foreign interference,” detect deepfakes, and analyse social media narratives. DSIT insists its current focus is narrow—targeting threats like election meddling by hostile states. However, documents obtained through Freedom of Information (FoI) requests by Big Brother Watch reveal a broader potential. An executive summary notes that while the CDDP’s present emphasis is on national security, it “has the ability to be pivoted to focus on any priority area.” This flexibility has raised red flags among those who fear it could easily be turned toward domestic dissent or controversial opinions.
The Labour government’s stated justification hinges on protecting the public from misinformation—a term that, historically, has proven slippery in its application. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDU was criticized for compiling dossiers on journalists, academics, and MPs who questioned official narratives, even when their speech was lawful. Past targets included voices skeptical of lockdown policies, vaccine mandates, or alternative treatments like hydroxychloroquine—later validated to some extent by research from Oxford University. This precedent fuels concerns that “concerning” could become a catch-all label for anything that challenges the government’s preferred storyline.
A £2.3 Million Investment in Control?
The £2.3 million contract with Faculty AI underscores the scale of Labour’s ambitions. The London-based firm, once backed by Matt Clifford—until recently the Prime Minister’s AI opportunities adviser—promises a system that can sift through vast amounts of online data to flag posts for “action.” What that action entails remains vague. Will it involve reporting to policymakers? Pressuring social media platforms to remove content? Or even direct intervention by law enforcement? The lack of transparency only deepens suspicions.
Jake Hurfurt of Big Brother Watch has accused the government of dodging accountability, noting that it continues to withhold “huge swathes of information” about the CDDP despite inquiries from Parliament and the Intelligence and Security Committee. This opacity echoes criticisms leveled at the NSOIT’s earlier incarnations, which leveraged ties to intelligence agencies to operate beyond public scrutiny. For a government led by Sir Keir Starmer, who once built his reputation as a human rights lawyer, the irony of such secrecy is not lost on observers.
Free Speech Under Siege ?
The FSU, a staunch defender of expression rights, sees this as part of a broader Labour assault on free speech. Lord Young, a prominent voice within the organization, has called the move “politically unwise,” especially given the timing. Across the Atlantic, the incoming Trump-Vance administration has signaled a rollback of censorship efforts, with figures like JD Vance decrying threats to “basic liberties” at the Munich Security Conference. Meanwhile, the UK appears to be doubling down, targeting platforms—many of them American-owned—like X, which has already clashed with European regulators over content moderation.
The implications for ordinary citizens are stark. Posts on X reflect growing unease, with users labeling the plan “Orwellian” and likening it to “thought crime policing.” One grandmother in Greater Manchester recently faced police questioning over a Facebook post calling for Labour councillors to resign—a chilling anecdote cited by civil liberties groups. If AI-driven surveillance scales up, such incidents could become routine, with algorithms casting a wide net over political critique, satire, or even casual venting.
The Slippery Slope of “Concerning” Content
What exactly constitutes “concerning” content? FoI documents reveal past CDU preoccupations with “anti-vaxx rhetoric,” criticism of COVID-19 vaccines, and discussions around 5G or alternative cancer treatments—topics that, while divisive, often fall within the realm of lawful debate. The CDDP’s ability to pivot suggests it could just as easily target climate skepticism, gender-critical views, or anti-government sentiment. Without clear boundaries, the risk of overreach looms large.
Critics argue this aligns with Labour’s broader regulatory agenda, including the Online Safety Act, which empowers Ofcom to fine tech giants for failing to curb “harmful” but legal speech. The FSU has long warned that such measures incentivize platforms to preemptively censor, stifling dissent under the guise of safety. The CDDP could supercharge this trend, marrying human bias with algorithmic efficiency to silence voices at scale.
A Crossroads for Liberty ?
The Labour government stands at a crossroads. Its AI surveillance push could position the UK as a leader in combating digital threats—or as a cautionary tale of authoritarian creep. For now, the balance between security and freedom hangs in the air, with civil liberties groups like the FSU vowing to fight back. Whether through public pressure, legal challenges, or international backlash, the battle over this technology’s use will shape the future of free expression in Britain.
The question remains: can a government that prides itself on progressive values justify peering into the thoughts of its citizens? Or will this £2.3 million experiment prove a step too far, even for those who champion safety over liberty?
Check out our articles on Thought Police, Policing, Police News, Policing by Consent, Two Tiered Policing, Wasting Police Time, National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT) and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.
The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession or any law enforcement agencies.
Most Popular ↓
What is Policing by Consent ? What is Two Tier Policing ?
Latest Articles ↓
- Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder
Immigration and Asylum Judge Sarah Pinder has come under scrutiny for her contributions to Free Movement, a website widely regarded as advocating for open borders,… Read more: Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder - Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP)
In a move that has sparked alarm among civil liberties advocates, the Labour government in the United Kingdom is reportedly advancing plans to deploy artificial… Read more: Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP) - Thought Police
In George Orwell’s seminal novel 1984, the Thought Police represent the ultimate tool of oppression, monitoring and punishing individuals not just for their actions but… Read more: Thought Police - His Honour Andrew Menary KC
His Honour Judge Andrew Gwyn Menary is a Circuit Judge and the Recorder of Liverpool. He is the most senior judge at Liverpool Crown Court.… Read more: His Honour Andrew Menary KC
All Articles can be found in the Legal Blog or Sitemap.
You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).
‘Justice delayed is justice denied’
William Ewart Gladstone
There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.
Counter Disinformation Data Platform (CDDP) was last updated on the 27th March 2025
