chicagocoolkid

coder, caffeine user, believer in a high-trust society. Opinions and thoughts are my own and not necessarily those of anyone else or any organization

[chicagocoolkid @chicagocoolkid]

@JimChuong Jesus saves

[James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII]

WATCH: Will James get his firearms back? O’Keefe goes to West Palm Beach PD with @j_fishback to get his guns back and you won’t believe how it plays out......

[Darren Bailey @DarrenBaileyIL]

I’m Darren Bailey.

I think your property taxes should go down, your gas should cost less, the government shouldn’t track your every move, and taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize Big Tech.

I don’t think that’s asking too much.

[chicagocoolkid @chicagocoolkid]

@orangeflavored_ @qweed @disclosetv Who’s gonna make me?

[Rep. Andrew Clyde @Rep_Clyde]

There’s 80,000+ Flock cameras across the U.S.

These surveillance devices perform 20 BILLION license plate scans per month, tracking your every move.

No warrant. No judge. No accountability.

This is a clear violation of our Fourth Amendment rights.

We must STOP THE FLOCK.

[chicagocoolkid @chicagocoolkid]

@RapidResponse47 @PressSec Both the US and Canada can learn from First Nations https://t.co/e5EtILZiwb

[chicagocoolkid @chicagocoolkid]

@WGNNews What can go wrong? Who will be held liable if this crashes? What if is ingested into a passenger jet engine and causes a mass casualty event? Why do we need this? What problem does it solve?

[Polymarket @Polymarket]

JUST IN: Tucker Carlson warns Flock’s surveillance network is treating Americans like “enemy combatants”

[WOLF @WOLF_Financial]

WARREN BUFFETT ON THE FED'S 2% INFLATION TARGET 🇺🇸: "I WISH THEY HAD A ZERO INFLATION TARGET"

His problem with 2%: it "compounds pretty dramatically over time." At that pace, prices double roughly every 35 years.

And it sets a quiet floor under everyone's money. In his words, anyone earning less than 2% on their cash is "going backwards." Worse, you may owe tax on the 2% that just kept you even.

"I don't like that particular goal."

[chicagocoolkid @chicagocoolkid]

@Tapper195 @CFC_lova @JamesDu96671924 Congress too

[Paul Walsh @Paul__Walsh]

Ursula von der Leyen has confirmed that everyone in the EU will need to use the EU's app for identity authentication before being able to access or post on social media websites.

🇪🇺 As an expert in online child safety, I am here to expose the misinformation and misdirection in von der Leyen's statements.

Today von der Leyen said:

"This is not about whether children can access social media, it is about whether social media can access our children".

💡The first part is true. This isn't about children. It's about surveillance and combating political dissent. A state that can't control its own citizens is more dangerous than a state rife with criminals. The second part is a PR soundbite that politicians are using like a campaign slogan straight out of 1984.

🇪🇺"The question is no longer if children face risks online, but what can we do to give children a safer start online".

💡No. You can't give children a "safer start" online any more than you can offline. In the offline world, the government doesn't enforce curfews or ban children from entering liquor stores, bars or restaurants. That's a parent's responsibility. The digital world should be no different.

🇪🇺"The age verification app is one of the tools to get it done".

💡This is a contradiction because she also said "It won't be foolproof".

🇪🇺"It's easy to use, it is privacy preserving and it is open source".

💡The app was compromised as soon as it was released. "Privacy-preserving" age verification is an oxymoron. You can't verify a person's age without verifying their identity. Where or how that age is shared afterwards is irrelevant.

🇪🇺"This is basically about putting back the power into the hands of parents".

💡More from 1984. The EU is doing the opposite. Parents are having their authority stripped by politicians who think they know better. Many parents are capable and unaffected by peer pressure, and they know how to use parental controls to block any app classified as 13+. Some teens are safe, their parents trust them, and the state has no business overruling that trust.

🇪🇺"We don't give our children keys to the car before they have their licence"

💡Comparing an app to a car is a false equivalence used to justify mass surveillance. Governments don't decide when a young person is ready for car keys, guardians do.

💡Forcing every adult and child into a biometric checkpoint just to use an app or website is not licensing drivers. It's the state seizing everyone's keys, locking the garage, and forcing every driver to ask a private company for permission to take a drive.

💡 This is a gross, unethical overreach that strips authority from parents while imposing state sanctioned identity verification on every adult who doesn't even have a child.

💡Additionally, people who pass a test, obtain a licence and drive a car aren't forced to use an app to constantly authenticate their suitability to drive.

🇪🇺"We do not let them buy alcohol until they are legally allowed"

💡False equivalence. We don't force every person to show ID at a shopping mall entrance just because a few people might buy alcohol with a meal at a restaurant. Some parents are okay with their 12 year-old going to the mall with friends while others aren't. Either way, it's their choice. Whatever irresponsible decisions some parents might make, every adult in the country shouldn't be forced to pay the price.

🇪🇺"It won't be foolproof"

💡This is all the proof we need to show that the EU and every government know that banning social media for teens won't protect them. When pressed by journalists about VPNs being used to circumvent a ban, politicians always state the ban isn't a silver bullet and will take time. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan went as far as to say "we know it's not the solution".

💡Either age verification works, or it doesn't. As a technical expert in this space, I can tell you there are no additional steps to take and no progress to be made. Either the approach does what it is supposed to do, or it's not fit for purpose. If they claim a bulletproof solution is coming, it can only mean one thing. They intend to ban or restrict VPNs to people who verify their identity.

🇪🇺"It will take time to invite the cultural change that is already taking shape in our society, just as it took time to outlaw drink driving, just as it took time to use seatbelts in the cars. Great change never happens overnight, but when it comes to our safety it is always worth it".

💡Comparing a social media ban and age verification to seatbelts is a completely broken analogy. Seatbelts are a safety feature that protects children while allowing them to travel in a car. A ban doesn't give kids a seatbelt. It kicks them out of the car entirely.

💡Instead of supporting parents who want to guide their own children through the digital world, this heavy-handed law strips away parental authority by banning the apps and websites that many parents are perfectly fine with and actively monitor.

💡Furthermore, enforcing these bans requires biometric age verification, which means forcing millions of adult citizens to scan their IDs, faces or credit cards just to browse the internet. That isn't a common-sense traffic law.

💡It's a digital checkpoint on every street. True safety means teaching kids how to navigate the digital world safely with real guardrails and parental guidance, not burning down digital spaces for everyone under the guise of protection.

🇪🇺☠️ The EU wants to ban teens from social media so every person is forced to verify their identity before they can read, share or post anything online. In their words, this is to protect children from dangerous content.

🇪🇺☠️ The EU wants to enforce "Chat Control" so every app has to monitor everything people say privately inside it, including apps with end-to-end encryption. In their words, this is to protect children from dangerous criminals.

💡Where this ends

🇪🇺 "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever".

George Orwell, 1984.

[Nick Freitas @NickJFreitas]

“Teen takeovers” are conducted by the same kids that used to scream in the toy aisle till they got what they wanted…instead of what they needed.

[Orwell Day @OrwellDay]

Driving on public roads shouldn't mean forfeiting your constitutional rights.

[TenthAmendmentCenter @TenthAmendment]

❗ EVERYONE ARMED

Patrick Henry understood:
That's how you have a secure
and FREE society.

[chicagocoolkid @chicagocoolkid]

@JoshDotOverholt @DarrenBaileyIL Not to mention your tax dollars paying up front for them anyways. It’s guaranteed to come out of your pocket in any case

[chicagocoolkid @chicagocoolkid]

@JoshDotOverholt @DarrenBaileyIL It can be abused without your knowledge and consent. You might find out the next time you apply for auto insurance and get sticker shock at the quotes

[Darren Bailey @DarrenBaileyIL]

Flock is a mass surveillance network.

That’s where the “You’re in public, so you have no expectation of privacy” arguments collapses.

There’s a difference between someone seeing you drive down the road and the government creating a searchable record of where you’ve been.

I don’t oppose Flock because I’m against law enforcement. I oppose it because I oppose a surveillance state.

In a free country, the government shouldn’t be tracking the daily movements of law-abiding citizens without individualized suspicion or a warrant.

[Sven Clement @svnee]

The European Parliament voted AGAINST Chat Control. 314 to 276.

And it passed anyway.

Let me tell you how: they needed 361 votes to say no. On the last day before vacation. Every empty seat counted as a yes.

They lost the vote. They won the law.

That’s not democracy. That’s a trick. #ChatControl