I can understand why governments would push for something like this after 9/11, though it of course goes without saying that this is a totally unacceptable violation of someone’s basic rights. It also goes without saying that governments always want more control over their citizens, but what exactly are they so worried might happen, right now, in 2025 or the near future?
The genocide in Gaza and the massive response against it made them realize that they no longer had the ability to control the narrative despite their best efforts to spread Zionist propaganda. The so called “free world” has always relied on being able to sway public opinion and manufacture consent through media when necessary. Now that it’s stopped working because of people’s access to media on the internet that contradicts their claims, they decided it’s time to push a more restrictive regime in order to deal with the issue.
Most of this was happening or initially attempted long before the current Gaza situation, so it’s not that.
How can we decapitate this system before it strangles us back into the silence of the pre-internet ?
We probably can’t because the political formations that need to be organized take years to develop and grow. Namely, socialist organizations. And the ruling class and its political class lackeys already go after those as well, so it will be full of struggle. But it is the only real path forward for any kind of actually democratic system and is worth pursuing ASAP.
The countries under discussion are democratic republics, aren’t they? If so, then age verification is what the people voted for, not an insidious plot by “they”.
I think if you asked the people whattl they voted for none of them would say it was this. And yet it is still set to roll out.
Makes you wonder what liberal democracy really means doesn’t it?
Sometimes policy issues arise after an election cycle, in which case the voters didn’t have an opportunity to vote for or against the candidates based on their position on the policy issue. Was that the case with age verification in the UK?
In a healthy democracy, future elections decide the fate of these policies, which can be reverted. Even the USA’s complete prohibition on recreational alcohol, which was popular with voters at the time, and codified into the constitution itself, later became unpopular with voters, and was repealed. So as long as the democracy remains healthy, there is always an opportunity for bad policies to be repealed.
You should read the rest of the thread to get an understanding of why surveillance and deanonymization is being pushed. It is not to solve some real issue to the benefit of the public, it is a response to the failure of the media systems of control to control narratives.
Your claims about a “healthy democracy” are fairy tales. That’s propaganda about how it works, not how it works in practice. The UK has its current Prime Minister due to a series of coordinated media campaigns against the previous leader of Labour, for examlle, with an internal purge using bad faith claims following his removal. No element of that was democratic and none of the UK governments have been popular for ages.
Question why so-called democracies only produce unpopular governments. Why don’t the parties align with popular interests in reality? Whose interests do they align with?
Now I’m even more confused lol. What’s the motive for media companies to promote candidates who pass laws that require age verification on websites such as porn sites? Are porn websites causing media companies to lose revenue or something?
The Australian labor government didn’t have age verification as one of their core policies. Also the specifics in Australia is being done by the esafety commission rather than through parliament. This whole age verification stuff is very undemocratic in nature
Democratic? That is exactly what the US is and you see how that worked out.
The USA is not a healthy democracy.
People don’t vote for policies in a western democratic republic, they vote for candidates that are pre-approved by parties and donors.
It is in the best interests of the parties to put forward candidates and policies who will have voter appeal, in order to prevail over competing parties.
the people get a choice between a few candidates, all of whom are preapproved in the major parties by the donors, who aren’t really of “the people” in any meaningful sense of the word
There’s no conspiracy of collusion between parties. Any party is free to put forward candidates who favor popular policies. And if that candidates wins, but doesn’t fulfill their promises, then the voters will remember that.
and yet they all have the same donors and the same lobbyists
are you antisemitism concern trolling or new?
Even if our elections were “democratic” (they aren’t), there is absolutely no chance of voting this shit away before it is foisted onto the population.
Do you have evidence to support the claim that European elections are being rigged?