Close Menu
FSNN | Free Speech News NetworkFSNN | Free Speech News Network
  • Home
  • News
    • Politics
    • Legal & Courts
    • Tech & Big Tech
    • Campus & Education
    • Media & Culture
    • Global Free Speech
  • Opinions
    • Debates
  • Video/Live
  • Community
  • Freedom Index
  • About
    • Mission
    • Contact
    • Support
Trending

Brickbat: No File Sharing

4 minutes ago

Jobs data, earnings calls: Crypto Week Ahead

24 minutes ago

Bitcoin Rallies to $80K, Highest Price Since January

27 minutes ago
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Facebook X (Twitter) Discord Telegram
FSNN | Free Speech News NetworkFSNN | Free Speech News Network
Market Data Newsletter
Monday, May 4
  • Home
  • News
    • Politics
    • Legal & Courts
    • Tech & Big Tech
    • Campus & Education
    • Media & Culture
    • Global Free Speech
  • Opinions
    • Debates
  • Video/Live
  • Community
  • Freedom Index
  • About
    • Mission
    • Contact
    • Support
FSNN | Free Speech News NetworkFSNN | Free Speech News Network
Home»News»Global Free Speech»UK’s Gen Z are increasingly censoring themselves online
Global Free Speech

UK’s Gen Z are increasingly censoring themselves online

News RoomBy News Room3 months agoNo Comments7 Mins Read931 Views
Share Facebook Twitter Pinterest Copy Link LinkedIn Tumblr Email VKontakte Telegram
UK’s Gen Z are increasingly censoring themselves online
Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Email Copy Link

Listen to the article

0:00
0:00

Key Takeaways

Playback Speed

Select a Voice

This article was commissioned for the Winter 2025 issue of Index on Censorship, Gen Z is revolting: Why the world’s youth will not be silenced, published on 18 December 2025.

Members of Gen Z – those born between 1997 and 2012 – have lived their entire lives within the all-encompassing glare of social media. More than 90% of 16-24-year-olds use such platforms.

Older generations often look on in shock at the level of sharing and over-sharing among young people. But in a world where cancellation has real-world consequences, there is growing evidence that the young are in fact imposing censorship upon themselves, particularly when it comes to unpopular political opinions.

18-year-old William Marsden is keenly aware of this.

“I don’t comment on TikTok, and I don’t comment on Instagram posts because other people I know will see it. Certain things on Instagram are funny, but some people might not think they’re a joke and they might get the wrong idea. You have to be careful with what you like and what you say so sometimes I don’t say anything,” he said.

Marsden is like a growing number of Gen Zers – censoring themselves on social media platforms because of the fear of being cancelled or because, in his words, “they might take the piss out of me”.

“I’m not big into typing comments because you never know what will get back to you and it could potentially affect future employment,” said fellow Gen Zer Harry Waller.

Yet there is a definite divide between in person and online, he said.

“If I’m with my mates, I know it’s comfortable and we’re all as bad as one another.”

Do Gen Zers censor themselves in real life for fear that their thoughts will be captured and shared online?

“Oh, absolutely, yeah,” said Tom Bond, another in the Gen Z demographic. “I possess some political opinions which are a bit outside the normal box and they could sometimes be misconstrued as offensive towards people, which isn’t their necessary intention. But if that were to be recorded and made online, it would perhaps get me in a spot of bother. Also, it’s very easy to take stuff out of context when you haven’t listened to a full conversation,” he said.

19-year-old Evelyn Scott says the fear of making rash comments and responses and having them available for future scrutiny is part of this.

“Since COVID, you can probably say more in person than you can online. It used to be very much like you could say whatever you wanted online and no one was going to track it to you. If you say one thing now, that can cause uproar. You can literally get found out.”

“I live by the rule that if you wouldn’t say it to someone’s face, you don’t say it online,” she said. “The people that are getting screen-shotted and clipped online for saying bad things, it’s because they’re not thinking about actually saying it in person and the consequences that has.”

She recalled a particular incident where this happened.

“Someone I was with in Scouts had something screenshotted of them and sent to loads of parents; it was sort of hate speech. We were all under 16. Police got involved. It’s treated the same as if someone literally did it in front of you.”

William Marsden says that Gen Z is becoming more careful about their public comments as a result of living in a world where everything can be recorded for posterity.

“At school, if you’re mucking about people can just take their phone out and record you. Suddenly everyone in the school’s seen a video of you doing something stupid with your mates. You’ll be immortalised if it ends up in the wrong place,” he said.

“There are some mistakes kids can’t afford to make, and social media is quite dangerous in that way. They can forever be living with that mistake,” he said.

Because of this permanence, more needs to be done to educate young people on social media. Children are being exposed to it from a very young age and even when they mature, a lack of education on how to use it, what not to say and how to behave online can still leave them open to making these potentially long-lasting mistakes.

Evelyn Scott said: “There is definitely a negative side the younger you are using it because you’re not as responsible. But I think it’s important to be educated about it and use it in the right ways because it can be a very positive thing for young people.”

Harry Waller shares his own experience at a much younger age of the difference between comments online and offline, particularly relevant in a world where governments are considering bans on social media for young people.

“I overstepped that barrier [of what I would say online]. Ever since then, I just didn’t do it because it wasn’t like me. I got too comfortable and I’d never do it again.”

Speaking to Index, Positive Social, an organisation dedicated to empowering young people on social media, said: “Pupils often talk about how difficult it is to switch off, how social comparison affects how they see themselves, and how online drama can spill into the classroom. While social media can be wonderful, it needs balance, boundaries and education.”

They added, “Social media itself isn’t inherently good or bad – it’s how we engage with it that matters. When young people are supported to use social media positively – for creativity, learning, connection and campaigning – it can be incredibly empowering. Our view is that we should focus on digital wellbeing. That means helping young people use social media in a way that benefits their lives”

“Age verification and greater platform accountability are essential parts of the solution but they’re not enough on their own. The reality is that millions of under-13s already use social media, often with or without parental awareness. We believe that alongside stronger regulation, education and trust-based monitoring are crucial. But the aim shouldn’t be surveillance, it should be support.”

Evelyn Scott sees the benefits of the freedom of social media but recognises the downsides too.

“Obviously there are cons that come with freedom to post, which is people having very, say, extremist opinions and just trying to show young people and not censoring it, corrupting younger people that don’t know any better about what to listen to.”

Harry Waller told Index:  “Everyone complains that we have no freedom of speech, but I would say we do. After the Southport stabbing, people were saying on social media ‘we need to burn down where illegal immigrants are living’. That’s not right. We shouldn’t be using social media as a tool to spread hate.”

Tom Bond said social media is making it easier for people to become radicalised. “You find yourself within an echo chamber of people expressing the same precise views as you. It’s very easy to find yourself in a little bubble and content feeds with stuff personalised to you and you can form quite radical beliefs which you think to be normal.”

But Bond recognises the power of social media for good.

“The ability to express one’s beliefs on social media to a large audience is one of perhaps the main benefits,” he said. “Greta Thunberg, for example, she became a phenomenon within social media, and her views were sort of disseminated to a global audience and change occurred because of that”.

Read the full article here

Fact Checker

Verify the accuracy of this article using AI-powered analysis and real-time sources.

Get Your Fact Check Report

Enter your email to receive detailed fact-checking analysis

5 free reports remaining

Continue with Full Access

You've used your 5 free reports. Sign up for unlimited access!

Already have an account? Sign in here

Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email Telegram Copy Link
News Room
  • Website
  • Facebook
  • X (Twitter)
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn

The FSNN News Room is the voice of our in-house journalists, editors, and researchers. We deliver timely, unbiased reporting at the crossroads of finance, cryptocurrency, and global politics, providing clear, fact-driven analysis free from agendas.

Related Articles

Global Free Speech

People attend the funeral of Lebanese journalist Amal Khalil in Baissariyeh, Lebanon, April 23, 2026. Photo: AAli Hashisho/Xinhua/Alamy This Sunday is World Press Freedom Day. Like International Women’s Day, every day should really be World Press Freedom Day. Journalists are powerful watchdogs and protecting them should be a baseline requirement for a free society. But given how woeful the state of media freedom is right now – the number of murdered journalists being at a record high – a day of focus is clearly much needed. So too is a monument. The UK will have its first one dedicated to journalists killed in conflict zones next year, the design of which has just been revealed. Former Index trustee Sarah Sands spoke to us about it. Meanwhile, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), run by Jodie Ginsberg who used to to work at Index, is calling for an independent global body to support investigations into attacks on the media. Veteran foreign correspondent Christina Lamb echoed these calls, speaking days after Lebanese journalist Amal Khalil was killed in an Israeli airstrike. That there are many people working hard to address the dire situation is welcome. At Index these threats impact us on several levels. They feed into our campaigning programmes, while the editorial team work with people very much at the coal face. I joined the organisation in 2017 and one of the first articles I edited featured an interview with a Mexican journalist called Javier Valdez. A few months later Valdez was dead, shot 12 times by an unidentified gunman in broad daylight. That same year, and for several years after, I was in regular email correspondence with Andrei Aleksandrau, a former Index colleague and journalist from Belarus. In 2021 he was arrested in Minsk. A year later, another one of our contributors, Larysa Shchyrakova, was arrested. Fortunately Shchyrakova is out of jail and you can read about her experiences here. Aleksandrau is still being held. We also published Victoria Roschyna from Ukraine who was killed in 2024. I could list many similar examples, suffice to say the Index archive is a treasure trove, but it’s also a space where the words of the murdered and the wrongfully detained stand still, ossified, a sad and damning testament to the perils of simply observing. As I said, World Press Freedom Day should be every day and we work on media freedom issues 24/7. Still, we have commissioned a trilogy of pieces this week with the date in mind: Oren Persico writes from Israel on the media ecosystem there; Nedim Turfent, a former political prisoner in Turkey, talks about the threats directed at exiled media in Europe; and Dahlia Kholaif speaks to people on the ground in the Gulf about how the Iran war has amplified the ugly authoritarian reality of these states. Are journalists the canary in the coalmine, the first to be attacked during a democratic backslide? Perhaps, though I’ve heard artists and minority groups claim the same. What’s true is that journalists are the much needed fourth estate. They are a vital check on governments and the powerful. Journalists risk their lives to inform ordinary citizens about what is happening – and they’re now under unprecedented attack around the world. That fact should shame us all. READ MORE

2 days ago
Global Free Speech

There have been calls for pro-Palestine protests to be banned following attacks on Jewish communities. Photo: orlando britain/Alamy Since the shocking attacks on members of the Jewish community in Golders Green, north London on Wednesday, there have been calls to ban future marches in support of Palestinians, including from Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer on terrorism legislation. It sounds like a reasonable demand. There have been expressions of antisemitism on these marches and political slogans are often chanted that many believe to be antisemitic, such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as well as the phrase “Globalise the intifada”, which has led to arrests for stirring up racial hatred and which the prime minister described as “extreme racism”  following the attacks. However, this proposal is unwise for a number of reasons. The Jewish community needs protection, but so does the right to protest. It was significantly eroded by the last Conservative administration and Keir Starmer’s Labour government has already displayed an authoritarian zeal to limit free speech, including new powers that will allow police to put conditions on repeat protests, which became law in April. While this demand for a ban may appear to be targeting hate speech, and in this case specifically antisemitism, it would prevent legitimate and necessary protest. More than 70,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since 7 October 2023 and settler attacks in the West Bank have resulted in multiple deaths and thousands of Palestinians being displaced from their homes. Protest is an essential means of demonstrating public outrage at these events and solidarity with Palestinians. Nor will banning marches diminish the alarming growth in antisemitism, which has become normalised since 7 October. I have myself witnessed a new licence in disparaging Jews and Judaism in public life to a degree that I have never previously observed. It is as if a taboo has been broken. No distinction is made between the actions of Israel and a diaspora minority – not only by the individuals who commit these acts of violence, but even by apparently peace-loving people who would consider themselves to be opposed to racism. This attitude towards Jews has a long history. The belief that the Jewish people are intrinsically evil and out to undermine society dates back to medieval times in England, when they were the most visible minority in the country. That connection between Jews and wrongdoing is so deeply ingrained in our culture (from Chaucer through to Shakespeare, Dickens and Roald Dahl) that anti-Jewish feeling is easily triggered. So, when the Jewish state commits war crimes, it’s the ancient, irrational charges that surface once again: Jews as bloodthirsty child killers seeking to control the world. That’s why the distinction between Jews and Israel is so readily blurred. You don’t stamp out that deep cultural antipathy by banning a march. Instead, you marginalise Palestinians, who are in essential need of international support. You undermine a fundamental democratic right and you fail to address the root causes of antisemitism. You also deny the possibility for a nuanced discussion. I have sympathy with fellow Jews who feel that the chants on marches are hostile and racist. But “Globalise the intifada” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are political slogans open to interpretation. The Arabic word intifada, or shaking off, is an expression of rebellion against Israeli occupation that dates back nearly 40 years. After nearly 60 years of oppression, supporters of Palestinians have every right to call for it in solidarity. Likewise, “From the river to the sea” could be interpreted as a legitimate call for self-determination or for a one-state solution, which an increasing number of Jews are now calling for too since there is no possibility of a two-state solution in sight. We need to have the courage and vision to support the Jewish community without destroying a fundamental and necessary right. It is Jews who will ultimately be harmed too, as members of the UK population, if the right to protest is further eroded. READ MORE

3 days ago
Global Free Speech

Zambian President Hakainde Hichilemamet Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing in 2024. Photo: Yin Bogu/Xinhua/Alamy Live News Also read our CEO Jemimah Steinfeld’s view on the reasons for RightsCon’s cancellation The cancellation of RightsCon, due to be held this weekend in Lusaka, Zambia has come as a shock. The global conference would have brought together thousands of advocates, technologists, academics, policymakers and others concerned with issues at the intersection of human rights and technology. However, for those Zambians who are abreast of the political direction their country is taking, it is not very surprising. Daniel Sikazwe, the secretary general of Zambian PEN, had feared that it could happen given the fact that the conference was to happen just three months before the general elections on 13 August 2026. “The conference was going to show the world the state of human rights violations in Zambia at a time when the regime in power does not want this information known by the electorate,” he said, adding that since President Hakainde Hichilema assumed office in 2021, the human rights situation in the country has deteriorated. Hichilema’s government has enacted laws like the Cyber Security Act (2025) and the Cyber Crimes Act (2025) which human rights experts consider hostile to perceived dissent, criticism and political opposition. In fact, the Law Association of Zambia has petitioned the high court to declare provisions of the Cyber Crimes Act unconstitutional since it infringes on freedom of expression, speech, conscience, and association. The Ministry of Information’s press release stating that the conference’s postponement was “necessitated by the need for a comprehensive disclosure of the critical information relating to key thematic issues proposed for discussion” suggests that the government was apprehensive about the direction that some of the conference sessions would take. Charles Mafa, managing partner and editor at the Center of Investigative Journalism in Lusaka, Zambia attributed the postponement to China’s influence in the mining sector in Zambia. “On 18 February 2025, there was a major environmental disaster in Zambia: a tailings dam owned by a Chinese state-owned enterprise collapsed, releasing close to 50 million litres of highly toxic waste into the Kafue River ecosystem. This disaster and how investigations into it have been frustrated by the government was bound to be one of the big talking points at the conference to the discomfort of the ruling party,” he said. David Ngwenyama, a well-known Zambian ecologist, reiterates Mafa’s point. “This is the same government that has done public relations work for the Chinese mining company, claiming that pollution has been neutralised and the conditions are back to normal,” he said, adding, “I would not be surprised if the postponement of the conference is yet another performance of Chinese power in Zambia.” The fact that the venue where the conference was to be held – the Mulungushi International Conference Center – was partly built with Chinese funds has also made people wonder if China could have had a hand in the postponement of the event. There were also representatives from Taiwan due to speak at the conference. If all this is true, it raises serious questions about Zambia’s sovereignty. For an African journalist like me, having RightsCon in southern Africa would have been a megaphone for human rights defenders and journalists to showcase the deterioration of human rights observance on the African continent and to put this on record. It was also an opportunity for human rights defenders and journalists to come together as a family that shares the same values and dilemmas. There is immense power in this kind of gathering because it sends the powerful message: you are not alone in this work you are doing – everywhere in the world, there are people who are fighting for human rights observance  as you are, and paying the price as you are, sometimes the ultimate price. Finally, in the past, before the world changed in the Donald Trump direction where business and financial deals matter more than human life and human rights, resolutions made at these conferences had serious consequences for the nations labelled human rights violators, particularly in terms of isolating them as pariah nations (think of Iran, North Korea, Russia, after the invasion of Ukraine and the killing of Alexei Navalny –  and the killing of more than 50,000 people in the Gaza war. These days, unfortunately, none of this seems to matter: Mighty nations can attack weaker nations at will, assassinate the entire cabinet, and turn this into a joke on social media. Bombing “for fun”. Sad. READ MORE

3 days ago
Global Free Speech

CPJ, partners condemn Ecuador court’s order to remove press freedom NGO’s content

3 days ago
Global Free Speech

CPJ welcomes Brazilian Supreme Court ruling in favor of journalist blinded by rubber bullet

3 days ago
Global Free Speech

CPJ documentation of Israeli harm against Palestinian journalists, media workers

4 days ago
Add A Comment

Comments are closed.

Editors Picks

Jobs data, earnings calls: Crypto Week Ahead

24 minutes ago

Bitcoin Rallies to $80K, Highest Price Since January

27 minutes ago

The bitcoin ETF recovery in flows is real. It is just not complete yet

1 hour ago

Stablecoin Label Outdated as Crypto Evolves Into Global Financial Rails

1 hour ago
Latest Posts

Veteran trader Peter Brandt sees bitcoin hitting $250,000, but only after a bottom later this year

2 hours ago

CFTC Gets Mixed Responses to Prediction Market Rulemaking

3 hours ago

Strategy pauses bitcoin (BTC) buys before Tuesday earnings

3 hours ago

Subscribe to News

Get the latest news and updates directly to your inbox.

At FSNN – Free Speech News Network, we deliver unfiltered reporting and in-depth analysis on the stories that matter most. From breaking headlines to global perspectives, our mission is to keep you informed, empowered, and connected.

FSNN.net is owned and operated by GlobalBoost Media
, an independent media organization dedicated to advancing transparency, free expression, and factual journalism across the digital landscape.

Facebook X (Twitter) Discord Telegram
Latest News

Brickbat: No File Sharing

4 minutes ago

Jobs data, earnings calls: Crypto Week Ahead

24 minutes ago

Bitcoin Rallies to $80K, Highest Price Since January

27 minutes ago

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest news and updates directly to your inbox.

© 2026 GlobalBoost Media. All Rights Reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Our Authors
  • Contact

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

🍪

Cookies

We and our selected partners wish to use cookies to collect information about you for functional purposes and statistical marketing. You may not give us your consent for certain purposes by selecting an option and you can withdraw your consent at any time via the cookie icon.

Cookie Preferences

Manage Cookies

Cookies are small text that can be used by websites to make the user experience more efficient. The law states that we may store cookies on your device if they are strictly necessary for the operation of this site. For all other types of cookies, we need your permission. This site uses various types of cookies. Some cookies are placed by third party services that appear on our pages.

Your permission applies to the following domains:

  • https://fsnn.net
Necessary
Necessary cookies help make a website usable by enabling basic functions like page navigation and access to secure areas of the website. The website cannot function properly without these cookies.
Statistic
Statistic cookies help website owners to understand how visitors interact with websites by collecting and reporting information anonymously.
Preferences
Preference cookies enable a website to remember information that changes the way the website behaves or looks, like your preferred language or the region that you are in.
Marketing
Marketing cookies are used to track visitors across websites. The intention is to display ads that are relevant and engaging for the individual user and thereby more valuable for publishers and third party advertisers.