I'm sorry but if you believe governments around the world that are ignoring and/or involved in a global pedophilia ring are forcing digital ID for internet access to "protect the children", you are really fucking stupid.
🚨 For anyone tracking the under-16 social media bans in Canada and the UK, you might have noticed the government suddenly walking back some specific wording.
They backed off forcing you to upload credit cards or facial scans because of the public backlash, and now they’re pushing a "backend token system". It sounds less intrusive on the surface, but here is the truth about what that actually means, because most people are being completely misled by that marketing:
A cryptographic token isn't a magic, anonymous poker chip. To work, a token has to be anchored to something verified. That means your physical device, your phone carrier contract, or your real identity is permanently tethered to that token.
Every single time your phone throws that token to let you log into an app, it logs exactly who you are, where you are, and what you're doing.
It isn't a privacy shield to protect kids. It's a digital passport that tracks an adult's every move across the internet.
“No homo males or females should be allowed to adopt babies”
We warned you all.
We told you.
We asked you not to tiptoe.
But you did.
And it’s happening…
Gay and lesbian people are now seeing the same attacks.
You see how Michelle Obama was victim of transphobia despite being cischet?
Bc transphobia effects all women especially black women bc we often seen as “angry” and hyper masculine.
Being a TERF is actually counterintuitive, let’s talk about it.
It's a genuinely sad time.
We have all had access to an open global information network for at least most of our adult lives. This is about to change. The internet is becoming gated, balkanised, nationalist, censored. A genuine societal shift I don't remember voting for.
I’m actually a child online safety expert and was one of the pioneers in this space with Club Penguin and so I feel uniquely positioned to critique this.
The groomer problem is real but it’s also vastly overstated. The far larger issue we saw at Penguin was suicidality or reports of sexual abuse in the home.
There is no solution for lazy/bad parenting. You can implement all the ID laws you want but if parents are going to just hand kids their phones unlocked, those kids will have access to all the same things the parents have unfettered.
What I found is that these draconian safety laws actually make it harder to be an honest operator of kids apps because on one hand it’s so much legal risk and so much user friction that it simply becomes uninvestible as a business.
Parents will just lie to let their kids use the unfettered internet. For example, I have a friend who works in mobile gaming who has two kids, one above and one below the age limit but separated by just 2 yrs, and the two wanted to play and chat together on Roblox - which is reasonable. To do this, he just verified that his younger kid is old enough for the chat feature when he’s not.
This happens all the time and will happen with these laws to. How far do we want to go with this? Scan the face of the user in real-time to make sure it’s not a kid using the device? We could do that but it feels like a massive unwanted intrusion of privacy.
That’s how you know this law isn’t about kids. COPPA and GDPR-K and so forth already make it illegal to allow chat and other grooming vectors to kids.
What’s really being done here is trying to eliminate online anonymity. And this is a far bigger issue that goes to core speech rights because if you cannot criticize the govt anonymously and if wrong speech is a crime then it becomes easy to identify all the detractors of the govt in power, and ban, fine or jail them for speech crimes.
Starmer has already been doing this and he wants to do it at a much bigger scale. Starmer won’t even acknowledge the problem of actual grooming gangs in Britain’s neighborhoods but he’s worried about online grooming?
No he’s not, and this hypocrisy gives away the game. What he wants is to kill online anonymity so he can enforce censorship of his unpopular policies. No politician should have this power.
The people smugly gloating that young people will just have to 'find something else to do' in response to the social media bans are usually the exact same people who seethe with anger and make reports about 'loitering' whenever they have to share public spaces with teenagers.
I’ve said this, but creating art that genuinely resonates with people requires you to be at least a little emotionally vulnerable
And conservatives have spent the last 40 odd years declaring emotions as beta shit for gays and women
JK Rowling wants you to think she is being silenced. That she is the lone voice of reason. That by defending biological sex she is defending women.
I have read her essay. I have looked at the science. Here is what is actually true.
Her arguments are dishonest. Her concerns are manufactured. Her legacy is not empowerment. It is harm.
She says sex is real. Nobody disagrees with that. But she presents it as a simple binary when biology has never been a simple binary. Intersex people exist. Chromosomes vary. Hormones and anatomy do not always align in the way she describes. She paints the world in two colours because the full picture does not serve her argument.
She says trans people using bathrooms is a threat. The data says otherwise. When Massachusetts introduced trans inclusive public accommodation nothing changed. No increase in crime. No spike in assaults. The only thing that changed was that trans people could use a toilet without being in danger. The people getting assaulted in bathrooms are trans people, particularly when forced into the wrong ones. She does not mention that.
She mocks inclusive medical language as if public health should centre her comfort rather than reach everyone who needs care. That language exists so trans men and non-binary people are not excluded from menstrual health services. It does not erase women. It means more people get the care they need.
She cites rapid onset gender dysphoria as though it is a clinical diagnosis. It is not. The study that coined the term was based on parent reports from online forums, not clinical interviews with the young people being described. Every major medical body rejects it. She keeps repeating it because it sounds alarming. Because if you say social contagion often enough people stop asking for evidence.
She says youth healthcare is dangerous. Puberty blockers are reversible and have been studied for decades. The evidence shows they improve mental health outcomes in trans adolescents. Suicide rates are higher in young people who are refused care. If she had read the literature honestly she would know this. The question is whether she has read it and chosen to ignore it.
She says most people regret transition. They do not. Regret rates after gender affirming surgery are around one percent. Most people who detransition do so because of external pressure, family rejection, housing loss or job loss. Not because they were not trans. She knows what the research shows. It does not fit her narrative so she leaves it out.
She says trans women in prison endanger other women. Trans women placed in men’s prisons are significantly more likely to be raped or assaulted. The US Supreme Court addressed this decades ago. She says she is protecting women. She ignores the ones her logic puts in danger.
She says trans women in sport are categorically unfair. The science does not support a categorical position. Hormone therapy reduces muscle mass and strength. Effects vary by sport. That is why most sports bodies are developing nuanced sport-specific guidance rather than blanket bans. She does not want nuance. Nuance does not generate the response she is looking for.
She says she is asking questions. But questions have consequences. Every concern she raises has a downstream effect. It shows up in legislation. In bathroom bans. In protest signs outside hospitals. In children being denied healthcare. Her words are not neutral. They travel. They arrive somewhere and that somewhere has a body count.
The woman who built her legacy on a story about love defeating hatred is now building a new legacy on fear. She has aligned herself with organisations listed as hate groups. She has become a figure celebrated by people who do not care about women, do not care about children and do not care about anyone who is not useful to their immediate political goals.
She is not standing up for women.
She is standing on trans people to elevate herself.
This pride month i have been called
-homophobic
-misogynistic
and stuff i am not wiling to say.
Happy Pride 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
Trans women are women.
Trans men are men.
Non-binary individuals are valid.
it’s not a hard concept but apparently most of yall can’t grasp it.
god everybody is so anti-solidarity now. they want their pain to be unique and without comparison as if that makes their suffering special and virtuous. we are all so much more alike than we are different. it’s no wonder there’s a loneliness crisis, what an isolating way to live.
I’m helping a disabled client verify his age with @PlayStation@Sony. He can't use their standard methods, and they have ignored requests for reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. This breaks UK law. @Ofcom please look into this or I'll take legal action.
So apparently, the plan's this:
1. Deny trans boys hormone treatment & force them to develop breasts.
2. Condemn them for having top surgery as adults.
3. Tell them their scars look repulsive.
Feminism huh.
@eleonorasfalcon@organalovebot Yeah, that's me too, I have MS and have to stay in bed for days at times and my main distraction has always been watching stuff on youtube.
@Dr_W_E_Bulmer Yeah but is where you see the ban only serves to inconvenience people and try to control people's data because you can just give your sign in to her or verify her account with your id.
Alternatively there are sites that mirror youtube and bypass things too.