Graham Platner may have easily won Maine's Democratic Senate primary Tuesday, but his own party is already trying to figure out how to get rid of him. Democrats openly admit they cannot afford to lose this race if they want to retake the Senate, and Platner is already complicating their plans. Yet, the chaos involving Platner may have only just begun. Maine's Democratic establishment is clearly uneasy, and national Democrats are not hiding it.
AP Photo/Robert F. BukatyAccording to a report from NBC News, behind the scenes, party operatives are reportedly circulating negative polling on Platner, exploring whether funding threats might pressure him to withdraw, and testing public opinion with a text poll sent on primary day that asked voters about the allegations of his abusive and demeaning treatment of women.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is fully in Platner's corner, and he made his reasoning transparent. "There is no great secret that there is a strong division within the Democratic Party," Sanders said, criticizing the party establishment and praising Platner for challenging it. On the abuse allegations specifically, Sanders is choosing to take Platner's denials at face value.
"He denies it, she says something else, but what I do know is that there are people in the United States Senate right now who are not saints." He then pivoted to senators who voted for the Iraq War and tax cuts. Sanders is essentially arguing that Platner's personal failings are less disqualifying than the establishment's policy sins. Even Tina Smith (D-Minn.), who replaced Al Franken after his resignation over groping allegations, endorsed Platner without hesitation.
But the anxiety over Platner with the Democratic Party is very real. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) outright said she is "not comfortable" with Platner as the nominee. "I will not defend someone with that kind of history." Former Rep. Tom Malinowski argued that the steady stream of revelations says more than any single allegation. "If a man's past keeps surprising us, it's a safe bet that his present and future will continue to surprise us as well," he said, calling Platner a "moral dilemma" and warning Democrats against repeating what he described as the mistake of embracing candidates more defined by their anti-establishment appeal than their fitness for office.
"The easiest, most logical and most likely path to picking up seats is with Maine in our column," a senior Democratic strategist said. "It's a struggle to see how we get the majority without Maine." Platner's internal polling already shows his lead over five-term incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) shrinking to four points - this in a state that went for Kamala Harris by seven in 2024. He is underperforming the baseline in the most favorable environment Democrats have had in years.
But the Platner campaign is showing no signs of leaving voluntarily.
"The Democrats of Maine have made clear who their choice is," Platner adviser Rebecca Katz said. "And the rest of the party should honor that choice." That may be true. It may also be exactly what the Republican Party is counting on.
Under Maine law, Platner would need to voluntarily withdraw by July 13 for Democrats to replace him on the ballot. According to NBC News, a Republican strategist involved in Senate races said the GOP is deliberately withholding additional opposition research until the candidate-replacement deadline passes, so Democrats are unable to replace him the same way Joe Biden was pushed out of the 2024 presidential race after it became politically impossible to keep him on the ticket.
Once that deadline passes and Republicans unleash whatever opposition research they have been sitting on, the Democrats will have no options left, just a nominee they cannot fully defend in a race they cannot afford to lose.
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 14:00Authored by Steve Watson via modernity,
Vague new rules will allow UK regulators to pressure platforms over "legal but harmful" content whenever government ministers declare a crisis, while the same government ploughs ahead with mandatory phone scanning, digital ID lockdowns, and jail threats for tech bosses who refuse to spy on every device.
The latest move from Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn makes explicit what privacy campaigners have long warned: the Online Safety Act is being weaponised far beyond any child-protection claim.
Benn confirmed that the internet regulator will now wield enhanced powers to tackle "false information" online during "times of crisis," directly tying the recent Belfast unrest to this framework. The regulator has already contacted platforms, with ministers asserting that violence "appears to have been incited online."
'If we are living in a country where you cannot report the truth, we are living under a dictator.'
Adam Brooks warns of government censorship as Labour announces a social media crackdown 'in times of crisis' after the Belfast unrest. pic.twitter.com/6yyNDXqWNh
Benn stated that if people put online 'false information,' "it is not acceptable and it may well be a criminal offence depending on the circumstances as the chief constable made clear yesterday."
When asked how a "time of crisis" would be defined, Benn said it "will be set out in due course."
The unrest followed a serious knife attack on a local man by an asylum seeker and escalated into protests involving vehicle fires, arson attacks on homes, and clashes with police that injured a dozen officers.
In addition, Ofcom, the UK's regulator for communications, responsible for overseeing broadcasting, telecommunications and - since the passage of the Online Safety Act - the major online platforms, is now using its powers to direct platforms toward enhanced, crisis-specific moderation measures whenever it or ministers identify spikes in 'illegal 'harmful' content during whatever it deems a 'crisis' event.
An Ofcom open letter published this week directly addresses the Belfast situation. It states: "Following a serious knife attack that took place in Belfast on Monday night, we have seen civil unrest in the city, some of which appears to have been incited online. This has included racially motivated incidents of violence, arson attacks on homes and vehicles, and attacks against police."
The letter goes on to remind online service providers of their duties under the Online Safety Act 2023 to assess and mitigate risks of 'illegal' content, including material amounting to offences of stirring up hatred or provoking violence.
It emphasises that "previous crises have shown how a sudden increase in the amount of illegal content circulating online can manifest in hate crime and violence in the real world" and that "usual content moderation systems and processes may not be sufficient in such circumstances."
Crucially, Ofcom confirmed new measures added to its online safety codes of practice under which platforms "should have procedures in place to respond to spikes in illegal content during a crisis." These measures, confirmed the day before the letter, are expected to be enacted by platforms immediately, without waiting for parliamentary approval. The letter stresses that services must "act now to address illegal content" and follow existing crisis protocols where they exist.
This directly engages the core claim in widely shared analysis on X that the Online Safety Act - repeatedly sold to the public as a child-protection measure - is now being applied to adult content and civil unrest with no reference to children in the regulator's own crisis guidance.
The government said the Online Safety Act was about protecting children. We were called conspiracy theorists for saying it wasn't!
Well er ... Ofcom is writing to platforms about "crisis situations", civil unrest and enhanced moderation measures. (Blocking posts they don't like)... pic.twitter.com/7oJybQORhQ
Given that the government and it's mouthpiece media has spent the entire week claiming Elon Musk and Nigel Farage, along with anyone commenting on the latest savage migrant attack, is inciting violence, you can see exactly where this is going.
The UK politicians will be more upset about this post than the attempted beheading.
It's simple, the violence the politicians import never comes close to touching them or their families. So they simply do not care.
According to the UK government, you're considered a terrorist if you believe that Western culture is under threat from mass migration.
Yes, this is really on their website. pic.twitter.com/XLh2X6Hri3
It has. Not even kidding. They've called it the National Counter Disinformation Centre.
- Bernie (@Artemisfornow) June 11, 2026The same analysis highlights how the definition of crisis has been stretched. Cabinet Office guidance in the Amber Book states that the terms "emergency" and "crisis" are used interchangeably under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.
An emergency covers events or situations which cause or may cause serious damage to human welfare, the environment or UK security - explicitly including situations that "have not yet been harmful but have the potential to be." No fresh parliamentary debate or vote was required for this expansive interpretation to underpin regulatory action during the Belfast unrest.
Statements from Technology Secretary Liz Kendall also indicate that the government intends to amend online safety laws to give the regulator stronger powers to require platforms to take tougher action on material that it says could incite violence or disorder during periods of "heightened social and political tension."
Those who use social media to incite violence and disorder are breaking the law.
Next week we will lay in Parliament an update to the Online Safety Act requiring services to take quicker action to remove illegal content circulating during times of crisis.
Critics argue this effectively allows the state to restrict access to real-time footage and non-government sources of information during such periods, framing it as a direct threat to freedom of expression and the public's ability to access unfiltered information.
These concerns sit alongside the Ofcom letter's call for platforms to have crisis response plans ready for spikes in 'illegal' content, including content that the government decrees could stir up hatred or provoke violence.
Further reports emerged of the UK government contacting journalists covering the Northern Ireland events to instruct their reporting, attributed to an anonymous government source.
?BREAKING: The UK Government are contacting JOURNALISTS covering the event in Northern Ireland to INSTRUCT their REPORTING
Attributed to an unspecified and anonymous 'GOVERNMENT SOURCE'
We live in dangerous times
Keir Starmer is a tyrant pic.twitter.com/uqDg811iu4
According to the communications shared online, journalists were reportedly directed on the preferred framing of the unrest, including how to characterise the protests and the underlying causes.
This intervention occurred as Ofcom was simultaneously issuing its crisis guidance to platforms, prompting concerns that the government is attempting to align coverage across both traditional media and online spaces to limit unapproved narratives during periods of public disorder.
Alongside the new regulatory powers, the UK government is rolling out something called PoliceAI, a new National Centre for AI in Policing launched with £115 million in funding. This centralised body consolidates AI development and deployment across all 43 forces in England and Wales, focusing on tools such as live facial recognition, predictive analytics, automated data analysis and deepfake detection.
The government states that it is designed to speed up investigations and automate routine policing tasks while creating a single national framework for testing and rolling out the technology.
The UK is so cooked, man... The UK government's policing office has launched PoliceAI, a new centre that will develop and provide AI tools for police forces across the country.
>These tools are designed to help officers deal with changing crime by making their work faster and... pic.twitter.com/7gcAbikslf
In the context of the new crisis powers, PoliceAI provides authorities with automated systems capable of scanning vast amounts of online content and communications in real time. These tools can flag material deemed to spread "false information" or incite disorder during government-designated crisis events, enabling rapid coordination with Ofcom for content removal.
Combined with facial recognition and predictive capabilities, the system allows police to identify and target individuals posting or sharing information the authorities wish to suppress, turning AI into a powerful mechanism for narrative control and the blocking of inconvenient facts.
I bet they plan on evaluating every social media post with this AI.
After all, AI is just a search engine.
A redditified search engine...
Not even Orwell could come up with this. https://t.co/cjOAIIlkRf
These developments do not come in isolation. They connect directly to the surveillance architecture we've relentlessly detailed: plans to jail tech CEOs for up to five years if they refuse to build client-side scanning systems capable of reviewing every photo, video and message on user devices before encryption.
The same framework underpins the coming digital ID lockdown on every phone, under which biometric verification and government-issued ID would be required for full smartphone functionality, with non-compliant devices restricted to limited "child mode."
Encrypted messaging service Signal is resisting the wider demands for phone screening and content scanning. President Meredith Whittaker has stated Signal would "absolutely, 100% walk" from the UK rather than weaken its end-to-end encryption.
#UK: The head of Signal has threatened to pull the company out of the UK entirely rather than weaken its encryption protocols to satisfy government regulators. This would be a serious blow to privacy. The government must protect end-to-end encryption: https://t.co/gKww7NcnXS 1/2
- Index on Censorship (@IndexCensorship) June 11, 2026Signal and Mullvad warn about the UK's plans to scan people's phones #Signal #Mullvad #UK https://t.co/Zhkfg2whIn
- CyberInsider (@CyberInsidercom) June 10, 2026Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo has warned that the plans "will only result in population-wide ID checks for all of us to use our phones, tablets and laptops" and amount to "ID checks for the internet." She described the requirement as invoking "the death of anonymity and internet privacy" and the overall approach as "a crossing of the Rubicon that would make the UK one of the most authoritarian internet regimes in the world."
The UK digital ID scheme is the lynchpin of a dystopian mass surveillance grid to be implemented for all from cradle to grave.
The government is pressing ahead to expanded regulatory powers over online content during vaguely defined "crisis events," with platforms told to implement special moderation protocols immediately. At the same time the government is advancing device-level scanning, embedding digital ID requirements on every phone, and threatening executives with prison for non-compliance. Instructions to journalists and pressure on platforms complete the picture.
This is nothing less than the construction of a complete surveillance control grid that monitors devices, verifies identity for basic access, and suppresses inconvenient information whenever those in power declare an emergency.
Free speech, privacy and access to unfiltered reality are the direct targets. Resistance from platforms willing to exit rather than comply, and from citizens who refuse to accept the pretext, remains the only obstacle to its full dystopian implementation.
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 13:40