UK Censorship: No Problem Getting Toad in the Hole, Mr. Musk
May 18, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
Elon Musk will be able to visit Stonehenge. No problemo. Why? According to “X Agrees to Crack Down on Illegal Hate and Terror Content in the UK,”
British online safety regulator Ofcom says it has accepted new commitments from X that aim to better protect UK users from seeing illegal hate and terror content on the platform. Under the agreement announced today, X says it will withhold access in the UK to accounts reported posting illegal terrorist content and determined to be operated by UK terror groups and assess “at least 85 percent” of terror and hate speech reported by users “within a maximum of 48 hours.”
Let’s assume that Elon Musk is indeed cooperating with a foreign government. The number “85 percent” is interesting. Typically filtering for problematic content uses a variety of techniques. In my Dark Web lecture, I pointed out that different words were used to avoid triggering automated filtering systems. I will not provide an example for CSAM, but I will provide an example for a potent type of drug. The words required to locate the offending content, as I demonstrated three weeks ago to about 180 cyber professionals, are “Girl Scout Cookies.”
Toad in the hole in a British pub is much more tasty that the food in the Monster Mansion aka HMP Wakefield. Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough.
Therefore, if the words do not map to the improper content, topic, product, or service, filtering systems may miss what’s bad. That means that even smart software has to be fed current terms used to sidestep blocks.
How does a company like Grok identify some that is “illegal hate and terror content”? One answer is that, Grok’s systems are so darned capable, they can hit at least 85 percent bull’s eyes. Another answer is, “Grok will have to set up some sort of post AI or post automated filtering system that makes use of humans. A third answer is, “Just do the best we can and claim 85 percent or higher accuracy.”
There may be other “answers,” but identifying and blocking is easier said that done. Let’s think about other challenges censorship systems face. Here are a few thought starters:
- For the bean counters. Any additional system adds costs. Since the problems in filtering are not known until we operate such a system, determine if it works, test options, and deploy the most effective, the costs are unknown. At this point, the bean counter fades from green to blanched almond white. Yep, filtering is expensive. Almost any option is expensive.
- For the human. Burn out awaits. Ask anyone involved in identification of problematic content if they like their job. Get back to me with your findings. I know my findings. Most people can guess an answer.
- For the programmer who is told, “Fix up a system.” The task is a big one. The core difficulty is the terminology shifts. A system of identifying a new proxy term, linking it with an offense, and then slipstreaming that fix into the constant flow of content will keep the programmer busy. I am not sure Claude, Gemini, or other AI enabled programming systems can crack this problem to hit the 85 percent figure. If you don’t agree, that’s okay. I am a dinobaby and usually off base.
Another angle I thought about this question, “Why would Mr. Musk cooperate with authorities in the UK and blow off the French judiciary?” My view is that Mr. Musk is willing to take action related to “illegal terrorist and hate speech.” He is less eager to take action against the content which has violated French law. Could this cooperation with the UK authorities reveal something about Mr. Musk’s content perceptions?
I will try to watch for more information about Mr. Musk’s 85 percent number. Based on my past experience with filtering systems, that’s a high mark. It is one that even human-centric censorship procedures struggle to meet. One thing is certain. Mr. Musk will be able to visit the UK at least until the first score results are made known. France is probably geared up to arrest him if he sets foot where France has jurisdiction.
Stephen E Arnold, May 18, 2026
Comments
Got something to say?
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
