4 ms·

The point of this isn't to keep kids off social media. It's an excuse to require ID for adults so they can arrest us for criticizing them. They also recently t

The point of this isn't to keep kids off social media. It's an excuse to require ID for adults so they can arrest us for criticizing them. They also recently tried to pass a "Misinformation" bill which would have given them the power to decree what we can and can't say on social media, and they'll try to sneak that back in, too. This country is a nanny state and it's getting scary.

kumarvvr 2y ago
Adults can still be on SM and can still criticize the govt. Also, it must be the state of affairs that an Adult can have an ID on SM and criticize the govt. and the laws and courts should protect that individuals right to criticize. Avoiding IDs on the internet, just so that the govt can't catch hold of the critic is a lot of step backwards.
threeseed 2y ago
You're literally spreading misinformation in your comment. a) The government was trying to outlaw deepfakes and fake accounts. But also require more transparency for users to contest moderation decisions. It did not try to limit what you can say. b) There is no law that makes it illegal to criticise the government.
- Nasrudith 2y ago
  There are many places in the world where there is no law for "contempt of cop" but police find a way to extra-judicially punish anyway. The lack of a law allowing something doesn't stop abuse of power! And Australia is notorious for its raids of journalist's homes and has a court system very disinclined to punish the police for illegal activity.
  - hcfman 2y ago
    Yep. The Netherlands is one of those places. They have made extra judicial punishment a way of working. They call it an “intervention”. And they will make use of all the government organisations to do it. those organisations just have to follow orders because the interventions are co-ordinated by an intelligence agency called the RIEC. No evidence is required, there are no bounds as to what they can do and there are no repercussions.
    - hcfman 2y ago
      Around 30 years ago they got caught out with this sort of thing. It resulted in a scanal called "The IRT affaire", it's on netflix I think. They waited 4 years, learnt from their mistakes, now their new way of working is to do all of the work through proxies, orchestrated by an authority structure so it's not possible to take them to court. And all of their really dirty work they do through civilian proxies, the weakest and most easy blackmailed of society. No one blinks an eye here. Also, this country which has issue an arrest warrant for the leader of a particular country is at the same time buying hundreds of millions of euros of military equipment from the same country. Such hypocrisy. Sorry, I got off topic.
- hcfman 2y ago
  Well there is actually. If the government label the criticism fake news. In the Netherlands people have been fined hundred of thousands of euros for spreading fake news about the government. However if it’s not fake news they can do the same. You won’t be able to do anything about it because it order to show your evidence you need to be able to publish and the press on there Netherlands will not help you with that.
  - oefnak 2y ago
    Please give more details about that fine. I But I'm sure you won't because the example wouldn't help your argument.
    - hcfman 2y ago
      Here you go. A whole radio program on it. https://www.nporadio1.nl/fragmenten/gaan/028ddaac-1369-49cb-b0a2-e4ce5596878f/2021-09-20-wie-nepnieuws-verspreid-krijgt-een-boete https://www.nporadio1.nl/fragmenten/gaan/028ddaac-1369-49cb-... The fake news that stood out to me did indeed sound pretty fake. I didn't believe it for a minute. But the point being if you fine things like that then what happens when someone has news that sounds unbelievable because it's horrific or flies against everything that democracy is supposed to stand for? If the government can fine like this then the news doesn't get exposed. Any BTW, there are a lot of people that would also not believe what happened to me. They would also think that it is fake news. Closing off reporting, means closing off avenues to highlight illegal activity from the government and hence less democracy. Why do I care? Because I was a victim of illegal extra judicial activity as collateral damage to illegal activity (Collateral damage simply because I lived next door) and no news will organisation would print my story. But now it's quite clear that if I started to publish details on the Internet that very quickly I would be slapped with a large fine, so that avenue is now closed as well. The details don't hurt my argument at all. Because my argument revolves around not being able to tell the difference between exposing really bad things that sound like nothing the governments would and other things that are not true.

kumarvvr 2y ago

Adults can still be on SM and can still criticize the govt. Also, it must be the state of affairs that an Adult can have an ID on SM and criticize the govt. and the laws and courts should protect that individuals right to criticize. Avoiding IDs on the internet, just so that the govt can't catch hold of the critic is a lot of step backwards.

threeseed 2y ago

You're literally spreading misinformation in your comment. a) The government was trying to outlaw deepfakes and fake accounts. But also require more transparency for users to contest moderation decisions. It did not try to limit what you can say. b) There is no law that makes it illegal to criticise the government.

Nasrudith 2y ago
There are many places in the world where there is no law for "contempt of cop" but police find a way to extra-judicially punish anyway. The lack of a law allowing something doesn't stop abuse of power! And Australia is notorious for its raids of journalist's homes and has a court system very disinclined to punish the police for illegal activity.
- hcfman 2y ago
  Yep. The Netherlands is one of those places. They have made extra judicial punishment a way of working. They call it an “intervention”. And they will make use of all the government organisations to do it. those organisations just have to follow orders because the interventions are co-ordinated by an intelligence agency called the RIEC. No evidence is required, there are no bounds as to what they can do and there are no repercussions.
  - hcfman 2y ago
    Around 30 years ago they got caught out with this sort of thing. It resulted in a scanal called "The IRT affaire", it's on netflix I think. They waited 4 years, learnt from their mistakes, now their new way of working is to do all of the work through proxies, orchestrated by an authority structure so it's not possible to take them to court. And all of their really dirty work they do through civilian proxies, the weakest and most easy blackmailed of society. No one blinks an eye here. Also, this country which has issue an arrest warrant for the leader of a particular country is at the same time buying hundreds of millions of euros of military equipment from the same country. Such hypocrisy. Sorry, I got off topic.
hcfman 2y ago
Well there is actually. If the government label the criticism fake news. In the Netherlands people have been fined hundred of thousands of euros for spreading fake news about the government. However if it’s not fake news they can do the same. You won’t be able to do anything about it because it order to show your evidence you need to be able to publish and the press on there Netherlands will not help you with that.
- oefnak 2y ago
  Please give more details about that fine. I But I'm sure you won't because the example wouldn't help your argument.
  - hcfman 2y ago
    Here you go. A whole radio program on it. https://www.nporadio1.nl/fragmenten/gaan/028ddaac-1369-49cb-b0a2-e4ce5596878f/2021-09-20-wie-nepnieuws-verspreid-krijgt-een-boete https://www.nporadio1.nl/fragmenten/gaan/028ddaac-1369-49cb-... The fake news that stood out to me did indeed sound pretty fake. I didn't believe it for a minute. But the point being if you fine things like that then what happens when someone has news that sounds unbelievable because it's horrific or flies against everything that democracy is supposed to stand for? If the government can fine like this then the news doesn't get exposed. Any BTW, there are a lot of people that would also not believe what happened to me. They would also think that it is fake news. Closing off reporting, means closing off avenues to highlight illegal activity from the government and hence less democracy. Why do I care? Because I was a victim of illegal extra judicial activity as collateral damage to illegal activity (Collateral damage simply because I lived next door) and no news will organisation would print my story. But now it's quite clear that if I started to publish details on the Internet that very quickly I would be slapped with a large fine, so that avenue is now closed as well. The details don't hurt my argument at all. Because my argument revolves around not being able to tell the difference between exposing really bad things that sound like nothing the governments would and other things that are not true.