Ink Blue

🇬🇷 Aspiring medical doctor, wish me luck 🌹This has become an anti-censorship blog

[theconcealedweapon]

[maarvarq]

Always bear in mind that there is absolutely no legitimate evidence that Luigi was actually the one who killed the insurance company guy.

[theconcealedweapon]

Of course he wasn't. He was at a party with me that day.

[tiny-space-whale]

No but like literally, actually. All bits aside.

He didn't do it.

The cops very clearly planted evidence on him because they had to make an arrest because all eyes were on them and whoever actually did the deed was making them look stupid.

Why would the real killer hero have kept the weapon on his person and traveled two states over while carrying it and a manifesto in his bag, conveniently turning the crime into a federal matter? The same guy whose bag they found in a park, filled with monopoly money? Why did the police turn off their bodycams, take Luigi's stuff, drive a block away, turn their bodycams back on, go back into the restaurant, and then arrest him?

From the moment of his arrest, even left-of-center media has been presuming his guilt without examining anything (e.g. calling him "the killer" instead of "alleged" or "accused") and then when I say he didn't do it, the nearest person chimes in with some quip that tells me they think he did do it but should go free anyway. Don't get me wrong, I would have the same attitude if he had done it. But he didn't. It makes me feel like the only sane person in the world, even among my staunchly leftist friends.

[seriously-mike]

You're not alone. That's exactly what's been bothering me all this time.

That tampering with the evidence was insultingly obvious. Some stuff doesn't add up. And the system is shitting itself desperately trying to show results.

[shinypenguinpizza]

So, tumblr is joining in on the age verification thing.

I hate it. And you should, too.

Remember when they changed how notes work? Remember when they added tumblr live?

We, the users, made them get rid of it. Can we PLEASE make some noise once more, for our own sakes and privacy.

[iwilleatyourenglish]

if the statements "parents don't own their children, who are human beings deserving of rights" and "children deserve their basic needs met, facts-based education, medical care, socialization, the ability to escape abuse, and unconditional love" makes you angry, you are not safe to be around children.

[diabolocracy]

This push to "protect" kids (under eighteens) from certain content in fiction is like if my friend's mother got into politics and decided to impose the same restrictions she set for her kid, for all other kids.

That friend could not watch The Addam's Family. It was forbidden in her ultra Christian household. At the same age, I loved The Addam's Family. A few years later I graduated into horror movies. I was watching M-rated films by fourteen with my parent's blessing (and presence; they watched them with me). I was playing M-rated video games even earlier with my father's blessing, as he was the one who bought them for me.

Because I could handle it. Because children all develop at different rates, and different families have different values. Different people can handle different things at different ages. This should be up for the parents to gauge and the family to decide on as a unit without external busy-bodies trying to butt in with exceptions for abuse or neglect, obviously.

Yes, I know "for the children" is just an excuse corpos use in order to push these things to get your data, but some people who support the nonsense are supporting it "for the children."

Anyway - additionally, it isn't as if children are completely devoid of agency.

When I was younger, probably around five or six, I had the option to play Doom on the SNES. It was my father's favorite game for a time. However, I couldn't handle it; I came to the conclusion I couldn't handle it; the face getting increasingly bloodier in the corner scared me and made me think of my dad all bloodied up. The solution? I didn't play it, and I stopped watching my dad play it. Very simple, very easy, I made a choice for myself - young kids can do that, you know? They can very much decide "I don't like this, I'm going to go do something else," if they're allowed to, or brought up with a sense of agency, and the ability to make their own decisions within reason.

tl;dr I'm so very fucking glad I never had a child in a world that seems increasingly keen on removing the parent's ability to decide what their child can and cannot handle.

[pocket-deer-belly]

the older i get the more it's terrifying to me how much child surveillance is normalized. scared for your child's mental health? here's more tools that will make them feel even more watched at all times. child is experimenting with their gender identity while away from you? we made it this other adult's job to surveil them for you. kid is "enjoying" their "free time" instead of doing homework? we've put parental controls on the things that they like so that you can monitor their private time. like can we fucking stop

[alkistisnetwide]

News from Greece, age verification requirements to access social media and other services have now been officially announced, will be voted on later this year and implemented starting Jan. 1st 2027

The plans are much, much worse than anything seen before, as they are trying to include a legal requirement for a specific app to be installed on every device used by a child under 15 and potentially any minor, which will automatically block access to all apps and websites which have been flagged as not age-appropriate by the government or the parents. This app will also act as a digital wallet for a child, which will contain their legal documents, and will be set up by parents using their and their children's personal numbers. This means that any activity the app records is directly associated to the user of the device, and so are all limitations set by the parents.

Whenever someone attempts to create an account for any service even vaguely resembling social media, age verification will be necessary. Re-verification must happen every 6 months. There have also been talks of shifting the burden of age assurance from independent providers to the Greek government itself.

This is obviously deeply horrifying, and I am sure everyone browsing posts like this understands why. I still consider it meaningful to explain why our government is making these moves. The ruling party has had a nearly complete grasp on power for decades, and they have deep connections to certain interests, foreign and otherwise. Their policies are deeply unpopular, except with some businesspeople. They, however, own all major media outlets, and have suceeded in convincing people who couldn't care less about politics that their party is the only one competent, while the blame for the billions in public funds that have disappeared overnight is being shifted from one political opponent to the next.

They have not had the same success with social media. Only these past few months, they've been called out for attempting to gaslight people about the availability of medical appointments, sending the special forces to beat up nurses and arrest a doctor for peacefully protesting, putting up a mock trial for a tragedy that killed 57 people and severely injured another 81, insulting and intimidating family members of the aforementioned tragedy's victims, spying on journalists, fervently praising a certain country in the Levant for "bringing culture to the Middle East and bravely defending their territory" without even attempting to deny apartheid or the ongoing genocide and photoshopping evidence (I am probably forgetting at least half of their recent exploits, as it is very late)

A requirement for everyone speaking publicly to be eponymous, something they have suggested, but has not been framed as related to this proposal, would intimidate and silence critics and whistleblowers, as well as their audience. I am not holding onto much hope that this will not be made law, as the ruling party and a few allies have more than enough seats. This will also come into effect a few months before the election (not coincidentally).

I hope everyone who also believes in freedom and privacy takes this as a warning and becomes even more outspoken and active.

[alkistisnetwide]

Something that makes me upset is extremely well-read and otherwise coherent people being very much in favor of age cutoffs for social media. Since it's happened again, I thought I'd compile a full list of arguments against age verification to access most of the internet:

1. Social Media and/or Tech giants obtain photographs of every user's ID or biometric facial features, which they have on many occassions been proven to hold onto or leak. These can also be connected to a user's online activity on many platforms, which greatly compromises their privacy, and, in case they are attempting to speak out about something serious, their safety.

1.0.1 [What if the government provides a link that can be used to verify age instead?]

Links would have to be personal. This means the government would know which sites each individual has an account on and possibly which specific account they own, and would also be able to suspend certain individuals right to use that service, using excuses such as being under investigation for breaking certain laws.

1.0.2 [What if a bank card is required instead]

People normally obtain bank accounts much later than ages 15-16, which are the most common cut-off ages. A parent's signature is usually required. Additionally, this information is also personal, can be sold as user data and can de-anonymise users.

1.1 [Social media is only meant for light-hearted exchange]

Websites that host content the state or powerful people don't like are targeted and are shut down, derailed or remain obscure. Serious things have to be discussed on social media, or they won't be discussed at all.

2. Children aged much lower than 15-16 will have a legitimate use case for social media. That might include talking to their friends or finding online friends, browsing content about their interests or finding reliable news sources.

2.1 [Children should only have real friends]

Not all children *can* have real friends. Many children are disabled and can not play with their classmates or are being bullied and shunned (the author of this was such a child). A child does not know infinitely many other children, so it's completely possible that they have no friends at all. Even if they do have a few friends, they might have none that share similar interests.

2.1.1 [Then they should be alone, or hang out with family]

Social relationships are a need, they aren't optional. Family doesn't always have the time, can't necessarily relate to the child, and might not have healthy expectations of the child

2.1.2 [Children should use age-appropriate websites to chat with friends and play]

The number, quality and safety of such places is dwindling every day, since children don't have much purchasing power. Even Roblox, a remarkably scummy website, now forces children of all ages to upload pictures of their faces in order to communicate with exclusively "children their own age"

2.2 [Children should explore their interests in other ways]

Children have no income and depend on their family. They might be allowed to pursue whatever they want and be supported by their parents or at school, but that doesn't always happen. In fact, some parents actively oppose their children having completely normal hobbies, seeing it as a distraction from school or inappropriate for their gender. In every case, though, it's always nice to hear from others with the same interests

2.2.1 [What if their interests actually aren't appropriate]

In that, very rare, case, what children need is education and diversion to something appropriate. Simply viewing other people talk about these interests doesn't mean they can engage in them either

2.2.2 [Then they should wait until they are of age]

By the time they are of age, they'll have already made some quite permanent decisions about the direction they're going to take in life, and these might not be the decisions they'd have made otherwise. That also means a childhood spent suffering, a considerable amount of time in which their lack of autonomy will be used to break them.

2.3 [There are no reliable sources on platforms controlled by people with vested interests]

It's still easier to find such sources through those platforms than through mass media, if you are starting from nothing. These can be a jumping-off point to finding better sources.

3. Preventing social media addiction in kids is a preliminary application for identity-scanning technology. It is how it can be first made into law and how all generations can be familiarised with it. Depending on reception, it will be expanded to websites hosting information, the operating system level, public services. Such things are unavoidable for everyone, and as such all activities can be tied to someone's identity. This has already been happening with Apple devices in the UK, where not verifying adulthood with a driving license or credit card, documents not all adults have, means a child-locked phone and automatic message scanning. The world is fighting tooth-and-nail against authoritarianism, and that will be what hands authoritarianism the win.

*This is a work-in-progress that I posted by error, and is being continuously updated. If you have anything to add yourself, please comment. Your suggestion will be considered*

[mjrtaurus]

Apple and Google are now pushing for global age verification by 2027. Call your reps and yell at them and keep yelling at them until they listen. Make them give a fuck.

[alkistisnetwide]

Any opinion on the bullshit surrounding Yanis Varoufakis' admission that he took MDMA ages ago and now the government is bending over backwards to get him for "promoting drug use"?

Because TBH that's the exact same kind of oppressive nonsense we're going through with the social media ban for teens. They're twisting the whole thing to absurd for obvious political reasons.

It's political persecution He was a member of the only recent government that challenged powerful interests, he is well-respected abroad... Many tactics have been employed to break opposition apart, and though it sounds like bad rep for the state to do this, they just got away with spying on hundreds of citizens using the Predator software. They do as they please

[gemsofgreece]

Lately even in the Epstein files it was revealed that only he (not even the party he was a member of) was trying to resist the lunatic policies of the Central European Bank and the CE leaders and actually produced viable plans for the improvement of the Greek economy (that aimed at initial harshness and gradual real improvement) . Epstein says in an email that once Varoufakis was removed from the government, the Greeks were fucked because all the loans went straight back to struggling European banks and only about 10% actually came or stayed in the Greek economy, since all the other Greek politicians (including Tsipras) were eagerly the servile servants. (Obviously, Epstein does not care and he does not use emotional language like I do here, but he does say indifferently that Greeks were fucked the moment Varoufakis was gone.)

Of course after this they found the great opportunity to tear him apart. Imagine not even interrogating ministers with proven involvement in the massive financial and spying scandals like OPEKEPE and Predator but if you took a drug once half a century ago, well that’s too much to tolerate, mate.

[seriously-mike]

Holy shit. Holy fuck. Holy shit.

Varoufakis gave me the "only sane man" vibe back when he was the minister of finance, and I felt that this nothingburger of an accusation reeked of the kind of bullshit our previous government pulled routinely (for example accusing a former minister of corruption and treating an expensive watch he produced the invoice for, date and all, as evidence despite all the proof to the contrary).

Turns out, it was even worse than that.

[alkistisnetwide]

It is dramatically bad, and though they have avoided being confronted with much solid evidence, many very smart and knowledgeable people in Greece know they stink. They have tendrils everywhere, own the media and have very close relationships with the Israeli state and other foreign actors. Many people believe they are forcefully preventing the left from uniting and have falsified elections. The tourism industry has made the islands nearly or completely unlivable for locals but it produces a lot of money that disappears in foreign bank accounts. They have stolen billions in public funds, destroyed the economy, nobody has ever faced consequences. We've always had an interference and clientelism problem. I have sort of lost hope in anything improving after Tsipras was "dealt with". Despite his flaws he didn't drain the life and beauty out of everything. I am quite young and too absorbed in my studies to speak on everything they've done in recent decades, so I'll only say that they've made everything they could authoritarian and stifling, almost as if crushing spirits is what they're after. The digital ID mandates and censorship of the internet are perfectly in line with that. They have removed art from school, made art degrees completely useless, embraced AI in administration, have teachers evaluated, are trying to create "ghetto" and respectable middle and high schools and separate kids, are trying to force children as young as 13 to take increasingly unfair life-deciding exams, are selling prime public spaces to the tourism industry and other destructive bs

[alkistisnetwide]

Any opinion on the bullshit surrounding Yanis Varoufakis' admission that he took MDMA ages ago and now the government is bending over backwards to get him for "promoting drug use"?

Because TBH that's the exact same kind of oppressive nonsense we're going through with the social media ban for teens. They're twisting the whole thing to absurd for obvious political reasons.

It's political persecution He was a member of the only recent government that challenged powerful interests, he is well-respected abroad... Many tactics have been employed to break opposition apart, and though it sounds like bad rep for the state to do this, they just got away with spying on hundreds of citizens using the Predator software. They do as they please

[alkistisnetwide]

Many people wish to opt out of a digital identity. It is certainly not a comfortable thought that your online activity would be directly tied to your legal identity, that requesting a large amount of your personal information would be made extremely simple, or that your freedoms could be suspended on a whim without due process, leaving you in very perilous circumstances. It is therefore difficult to convince people to support schemes making digital ID mandatory.

But sentiments can change when it comes to children. Children (including teens) are seen as lacking in depth of thought and emotion, incompetent in many fields even at an age when they can be a few months into university, unreliable and irresponsible. Violations of a child's privacy or autonomy by family or the state, with the goal of protection, are usually a lot more acceptable.

Here in Greece, the government is also working on a scheme to ban social media for children under the ages of either 15 or 16.

The details are being worked out, but according to what's known so far, that will be accomplished through the app "kids wallet", which is also a holder for legal documents and counterpart to a similar app for adults. This app is already live (though very rarely used and likely buggy and broken, which doesn't give me big hopes for the security of children's legal documents) and serves as a typical parental control app, allowing parents to both regulate and monitor their children's activity on the device. Unlike other such apps however, THIS IS LINKED TO A CHILD'S LEGAL IDENTITY.

The proposed changes are set to include making that app mandatory on every device used by a minor and a mandatory method of age verification to access social media. There has also been talk of agreements with Google to enable an "age-appropriate" experience for children (generalized censorship)

This is progressing without much noise, possibly so that opponents of this plan have no reaction time. What I want to ask from all of you is that you remember this information and spread it around, especially to Greek people (this post was made in English for visibility reasons)

Some necessary context:

This government has been caught using spyware against its political adversaries

The ruling party has ties to certain foreign states. They have received financial help to win elections

The ruling party was very involved in our financial collapse, which is a meme abroad

The government is currently in a lot of trouble regarding a recent major tragedy and public funds vanishing and is dealing with massive protests. The EU prosecutor assigned to investigate us is saying that our government is rife with corruption and that the investigation is being hindered

Teens and university students overwhelmingly distrust the government and oppose its policies

Bonus: Reasons why government-enforced parental controls are bad:

Not all people respect or understand kids. Children can be punished through deprivation of social contact, can be forced into all-day study or labor by disabling their phones, can be prohibited from accessing information that is not aligned with the parents' personal beliefs and can even be prevented from contacting help if something serious has occurred. Since the system is government-sanctioned, parents will feel more justified to use it. At the same time, detailed reports on the child's activities can devolve into interrogation and insults and is a violation of a child's right to privacy.

[hannahhook7744]

Imagine hating kids/teens this much

Spain looks to ban social media for under-16s, joining others in Europe

Spain's government plans to ban social media access for children under 16, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said.

Spain, Greece weigh teen social media bans as Europe hardens attitude against ‘addictive,’ ‘harmful’ technology platforms

Spain wants to prohibit social media for those aged under 16, Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said on Tuesday.

Annoy the hell out of your representatives so they drop this dumb shit.

Do you like fanart? Fanfiction? Being able to talk to your friends and watch your shows and read books without having to justify why you like something at your age?

Do you like finding communities you can't safely find in person?

Call. Your. Representatives.

Fax them.

Write them.

Email them.

Spread awareness.

We have to stop this shit before the destroy the fucking internet.

Keep an eye on the laws in your area and shut your representatives down when they try to push for this annoying shit.

There is no pushing social media bans for teens without age verification.

Also let's be real, sanitizing the Internet was never about the fucking children. It was about control and monetization. It's time to end this shit.

Make your voice heard and don't stop until they fucking listen.

If they do succeed with this bullshit I hope their younger family members give them hell for it. Maybe your teen family members would spend time with you if you actually let them have their own autonomy and lives!

[alkistisnetwide]

Hello, I am Greek, I've been talking about this.

Our prime minister claims parents are "begging him" to "give them back control", and he cites feeling sad seeing families on their phones not talking to each other as the reasoning for this upcoming legislation, which is really NOT only a social media ban but mandatory digital ID on every device used by a minor, via a "wallet"- app that allows parents to view detailed reports of their children's activities and BRICK THEIR PHONES.

It is extremely important to be aware this administration has been caught using sophisticated spyware on political adversaries and have been trying to privatise education and push children out of public university. They have attempted to sweep several atrocities under the rug and are the successors of the governments who made Greece into the debt-ridden lawless mess it is stereotypically known to be today

We need more eyes on this

[lenreli]

Two months into the social media ban, a teenager says it's 'useless'

Australia's world-first social media ban for under-16s is two months old, but teenagers say they have found ways around it.

Anabell, who is 15 and turning 16 in February, said she was part of a small minority who were actually booted off social media. "Ten per cent probably got banned, and most of them were people my age that didn't really need to get banned and have birthdays coming up. "I was angry because I knew a lot of people who didn't get banned that should have gotten banned. "I was watching people my sister's age, like only 13, still have social media while I was banned." Adyan agrees with Anabell's estimate. "Probably around 10 per cent of them actually have been banned, and half of that 10 per cent has been unbanned by just using basically the same thing that I did: use other people's faces, use their driver's licence. "Now, really, none of my friends are banned. Everyone has social media."

Shocking. /s

[alkistisnetwide]

Parental rights are an insane concept the more you think about it, and you should think about it more

Children aren't property, are their own individuals and there's such a thing as objectively safe things at every age

Yes?

So why is it perfectly acceptable to restrict your child's access to all sorts of information, know their exact location at all times, brick their phone and keep them locked up inside the house?

Why is it "normal" for parents to forbid their child from going on school trips and participating in activities, why is a parental signature required for absolutely everything?

I am convinced the people abusing their children like that would do it to everyone if they had the ability. Too bad it's only their youngest family members who can not advocate for themselves

The internet briefly served as a safe haven for everyone who did not have a voice in their community. That's why human rights progressed so much in these few years

And now, the liberties that led to us obtaining these rights are being revoked under the guise of "protecting the youth" from seeing things such as naked bodies and footage from ongoing genocide.

Age verification, beyond simply restricting children from any kind of autonomy, links real-world identity to online activity. Even if data is not supposed to be retained, there are still massive leaks. Such weak points should not be allowed to exist

I have a track record of my predictions coming true. I correctly predicted the effects the advent of AI would have, I correctly predicted what Elon Musk (disgusting) would want to use Twitter for

My prediction this time is that we are soon going to see a massive regression in the rights of minorities, rights related to personal autonomy and precautions against monopolies.

With the aid of AI, Trump, current EU leadership and public ignorance, the authoritarians are winning the culture war, and there is no resistance, because they pinky promised to only go after the kids.

note: Tumblr is one of the last strongholds we have, and they already capitulated to Australian censorship laws without yet having to. Please resist

[alkistisnetwide]

Hey guys, polite reminder, children are smarter than you think, and their emotional worlds are more complex than popular opinion would have you believe

Yes, they do have a tendency to imitate behaviors, and yes, they can't always form complete opinions on certain subjects or look after their well-being and safety

But children are small people with the same needs, that aren't always being met. Sometimes parents are so bad at supporting their children that they have to find their own solutions

If a child is engaging negatively with something online, their family isn't able to help them, and banning them from everything that could potentially be challenging will not aid them. You might think the kid (or teen!) is going to get back to reading books, playing games and hanging out with friends, but for the majority of young people who are online a lot that isn't possible. Entertainment for young people is scarce and expensive, and not everyone has friends or the ability to go outside. Sometimes children are ill. Other times their family does not find time for them. Many are abused and neglected, or severely bullied. Banning them from social media will drive them to the darkest corners of the internet or make them engage in dangerous behavior in person in the best case scenario. In the worst, it will execerbate the difficulties they are facing and make life even more painful, stunting their development and putting their health in danger.

I also have to mention that social media are a major information source, despite the inherent flaws in their algorithms. The internet is built in such a way that everything has to be engaged with through some form of social media. Bans allow developers to hold onto harmful features, since they no longer have as much responsibility, making the internet worse for all

Please, please don't dismiss this only because it's a few "spoiled brats" that need "discipline", or whatever else your thinking process might be. Abuse is real (I experienced it), bullying it real (was there), not all homes are the same. Have some empathy for the most vulnerable people in society and those not even allowed to speak for themselves

Temporary suffering is still suffering

[mashedpotatodragon]

In light of the fuckass under 16 ban on social media in Australia, I want to take a moment to recognise how this will impact disabled kids and chronically ill kids the most. The majority of the reasons for this ban is to "get kids active and talking to each other" but for many kids communicating online is their only lifeline. I know it was when I was a disabled, chronically ill kid in a rural town who could barely go to school. People are saying "it sucks for the current teens but it will be better in the long run for future teens." No it won't.

You know what kids will do instead? They will find ways around it, ways that are potentially more dangerous than if they could freely have socmed accounts, especially if they go to untrustworthy adults who promise to help them. Also, this has to be enforced by the websites on a case by case basis! They will probably try to use age verification via ID! We should not have to give our IDs out to companies who have been and will continue to harvest our data!

This will also make it harder for children who have abusive parents. These parents will now have legal standing to control their kids' social lives. I'm not saying social media is a net positive for anyone, let alone kids, but bullying can happen just as much irl as online. Regulation over restriction is what's needed here, but you know what's really needed?

The return of third spaces. The destruction of any place that doesn't serve suits is the real thing that kills kids' abilities to connect. Fund libraries. Fund youth outreach and youth programs. Fund community centres. Without that, this is just a dramatic punishment without better alternatives.

[donthideinabandonedfridges]

I'm not sure how to start a post, this is my first one

But this is about the Australian Social Media Ban

If you happen to find this as your first mention of the ban, let me pit it down in my understanding.

The social media ban makes it so that countries must take "reasonable measures" to prevent Australians under the age of 16 from having a social media account. As for what exactly that means, all I'm fairly certain is that, if they're going to make Government ID a verification option, the company will also have to provide an alternative, like a bank card or a face scan.

As for what the government calls "social media," it includes:

X (Formerly Twitter)

Facebook

Instagram

Snapchat

Discord

YouTube

WhatsApp (Dunno if this is certain or discussed rn)

Reddit

Steam

Roblox

And more that I haven't put here, I'm sure

I have a few issues with this

First, for things like WhatsApp and Discord, I personally would call them, essentially, a different form of text messages. Discord has better group chats and emojis and stuff, WhatsApp has end-to-end encryption. I'm not an expert but those seem like the only major differences to me.

Second, for YouTube.

To my understanding, people will still be able to access it, but they won't be able to have an account. But that's not my issue (other than it seems kind of pointless.) My issue is the government originally said they would not ban YouTube. And they changed their mind. Why? The eSafety Commissioner said so.

"Four out of 10 Australian kids have had their most recent or most harmful experience on YouTube," she said.

Not to be that guy, but maybe that's because of how insanely popular YouTube is. But from what it looks like, the ban is just for show. If you don't have an account, currently, you can still watch YouTube. So it's pointless.

Another thing, I feel like 16 is just. Too high.

You can fly an aeroplane at 15. You can get a learner's permit to driver at 16. The Age of Consent is 16 in most parts of Australia. In New South Wales, you can get a form of gun license at *12*.

And you need to be 16 to use Discord.

To me, that reads as the government saying its safer to fly a plane than to use Twitter. It's just as dangerous to be on Facebook as to drive a car. And there's probably something to be said about other resources and sexual orientation stuff only being available at the age of consent.

And I have yet another point. Social media is a huge way young people can make their voices heard to the government, because it helps inform and talk to other people and spread the word about things.

Under 16s can't vote, so social media is one of the only and best ways they have of getting their voice heard democratically and governmentally.

And they're taking it away

Taking it away in a way that, if any of them bring it up, it's easy to say "you're just salty you can't go on social media" or "you're annoyed you can't scroll TikTok."

The government's justification for taking away a lot of their voice? "It's for the kids."

Because making kids unable to make themselves heard is always a good thing.l, right?

Right?

And if you're someone who says "oh well I don't care because it doesn't affect me."

Yes it does. You still need to verify. You still need to use your bank card. You still need to give the company your face scan. You still need to give them your government ID. You are still affected.

Not only could that be devastating if that gets stored then sold, or stolen in a data breach. No one wants to give away their face, no one wants their online activity linked to their ID.

So reblog this, reblog other posts like this, make your own post on here or literally anywhere, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter.

Tell people, message your friends, message your family about this.

If you're Australian, email your local MP, hell, send a letter to the Prime Minister. Don't be rude or threatening or anything, they'll ignore or arrest you, but show them you care, and that you think this is wrong. Show them it's not just a handful of people.

Start petitions, sign petitions, organise and participate in protests and strikes if you're brave enough.

We should not take this lying down, because this will not be a good thing if it happens the way it's planned. And if we don't do anything about things we disagree with, where will we draw the line? Where will we look at what they're doing and say, "that's a step too far."

Because if impeding and infringing on the participation of AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE in their democracy isn't something that's wrong, I'm not too sure what is.

Do anything and everything you can, spread the word, get this noticed. Don't be violent or hateful, it'll delegitimize us. But show you care, and show it's not just you, whenever and wherever you can.

@its-spelt-censorship

As a post-message message, on the day I'm posting this, the Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albenese is going to be delivering an address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York. It's expected to urge other countries to join in the social media ban, so if you're in another country, spread the message too, because it might be coming to a nation near you very soon.

[alkistisnetwide]

OMG ily OP

Yes, yes, yes