pirate3012

[Fiona Rose Diamond @CoviLeaks]

Starmer's potential exit is just theatre. The WEF doesn't care who wears the suit; the 'One Big Club' always has another puppet ready to code your digital panopticon. Changing the warden won't unlock the cage when globalists already own the prison. Same script, different actor.

[Big Brother Watch @BigBrotherWatch]

👁️An innocent man was WRONGLY kicked out of a Sainsbury's shop using facial recognition

This dangerously authoritarian surveillance is a threat to our privacy and freedoms — it has no place on the streets of Britain.

#StopFacialRecognition

[Alan D Miller @alanvibe]

Let’s make sure we all make huge noise about digital ID

Make it Starmer’s albatross. Burnham has said he doesn’t want it. Well let’s make sure every mp hears from us!

Let’s get it knocked out

Also pls sign share

#dontidtheinternet

https://t.co/eO4AxxF5Dw

[Together @Togetherdec]

⚠️ A “social media ban” sounds like it’s about children.

But the systems behind it would turn age checks into ID checks for everyone.

What starts as age checks would become a system where ordinary people are identified, tracked and monitored just to find information, speak, share and take part online.

Don’t let age checks become Digital ID by the back door.

The open internet has given ordinary people the power to learn, create, organise, challenge those in power and speak freely.

That freedom is now under threat.

Support the call:
https://t.co/dMUDPn29eI

#DontIDTheInternet

[Together @Togetherdec]

DIGITAL ID: "I would rather burn my phone"

The new Pledge against Digital ID is a simple but serious commitment to refuse Digital ID and “government by app”

Launched at our Trafalgar Square rally, with NO2ID
A similar pledge helped defeat Tony Blair’s ID cards in the 2000s - and was signed over 1 million times

Learn more: https://t.co/qq3tYoGbE1

#PledgeTogether @elliehodges62

[Alan D Miller @alanvibe]

In a world obsessed with tech fixes & viewing parents as the problem, the reflex is always more regulation.

Parents already have the tools: screen limits, app controls, or just taking the damn phone away. Smartphones aren’t mandatory.

The real issue? Decades of state overreach treating parents like children while eroding trust.

If you believe in freedom, liberty & privacy grt involved - make sure your voice is heard

Don’t ID Thr Internet! #dontidtheinternet
Pls sign share today see below👇

[Together @Togetherdec]

Digital ID. Surveillance. And how we fight back.

Together’s @alanvibe will be speaking at CPAC Great Britain @cpac_gb 🇬🇧

July 16–18 | London

Tickets:
https://t.co/yeTa02HeQm

#CPACGB

[Together @Togetherdec]

The open internet has been one of the greatest forces for freedom and human progress in history.

It has given ordinary people the power to learn, create, organise, challenge authority, campaign for change, and share ideas without needing permission from governments or corporations.

That freedom is now under threat.

The Government says its new proposals are about “protecting children online.”

But the reality is much broader.

These sweeping measures would affect everyone through age verification systems that increasingly operate as identity checks, device-level monitoring, and the progressive removal of anonymity online.

A “social media ban for children” will ultimately mean ID checks for all of us before we can speak online.

Support the call:
https://t.co/dMUDPn1Bpa

#DontIDTheInternet

[Together @Togetherdec]

We’ll be spreading the message at the @ARC_Conference next week on Digital ID, free speech, and key issues that matter to all of us

Please come and say hello if you'll be there

23-25 June, London

More info: https://t.co/Cs4bnkIy9Z

[Adnan Al-Daini Ph.D. @respect65]

Keep cash alive, use it.

[Together @Togetherdec]

Child safety starts with parents, not the state.

Children do not independently acquire smartphones.

These devices are bought, configured, and managed by parents or carers.

No child enters the online world without an adult making that decision first.

And parents already have tools available to them.

A parent who wants a child-lock on a phone can switch one on today. For free. It is already built into modern devices. Screen-time limits, app restrictions, and content filters exist right now and are widely available.

Despite this, what is now being proposed is a shift towards mandatory, system-wide enforcement built into every device, and applied to every user.

[pirate3012 @pirate3012]

No to Digital Id @DavidDavisMP

[pirate3012 @pirate3012]

We were warned Digital ID could come through the back door. The so-called “social media ban” risks turning age verification into a system where everyone has to prove who they are to use the internet.
Protect privacy & the open internet.
#DontIDTheInternet
https://t.co/i5miWIdE1f

[Fiona Rose Diamond @CoviLeaks]

As much as I hate to say this, I have to tell you the brutal truth: the system you think is protecting you was actually engineered from day one to trap you.

Article 19 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the exact global illusion that gets split into the UK’s domestic legal traps of Article 8 (Privacy) and Article 10 (Free Expression) under the Human Rights Act 1998 [HRA 1998].

Wake up and stop hiding behind the delusion of inalienable rights; the UN's UDHR is a toothless piece of 1948 diplomatic paper with zero legal force, manufactured by the exact globalist machine driving the 2030 Agenda. Even the ECHR and UK Human Rights Act were meticulously engineered from day one with structural escape hatches.

Your privacy and free speech are legally classified as "qualified rights," meaning they are hardcoded to be legally violated the second a politician decrees it "necessary and proportionate" [HRA 1998]. The human rights framework isn't your shield - it is the state's ultimate checklist to make your surveillance perfectly legal!

Because the UDHR failed to be legally binding, The Council of Europe created the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in 1950, which is enforceable in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998. The public points to Article 8 (Right to Privacy/Correspondence) and Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) and thinks the state is blocked from spying on them.

The ECHR was never an absolute shield. It was designed from its very inception in 1950 to be mostly "qualified."

The Article 8 (Privacy): Paragraph 1 states you have the right to privacy in your correspondence. But Article 8(2) explicitly states the government can interfere with your privacy if it is "in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime..."

The Article 10 (Free Speech): Paragraph 1 gives you free expression. But Article 10(2) states this right carries "duties and responsibilities" and can be restricted for "the protection of health or morals, [or] the protection of the reputation or rights of others."

The HRA divides your rights into different categories, and the state has weaponised this division:

The Illusion: The public thinks all rights are absolute.

The Caveat: Only a tiny handful of rights (like Article 3: Prohibition of Torture) are absolute. The rights that protect your digital freedom; Article 8 (Privacy), Article 9 (Conscience), Article 10 (Free Expression), and Article 11 (Assembly) are Qualified Rights.

The Catch: Under the HRA framework, a qualified right is legally designed to be interfered with. The law explicitly states that the government can breach your privacy or restrict your speech as long as they can argue it is "lawful, necessary, and proportionate" to achieve a "legitimate aim" (such as "public safety" or "protecting health" or "protecting children").

Please, folks, we must use these caveated rights as tools while refusing to blindly believe they are a catch-all protection (did they help us during the lockdown or with mandates, NO!); the law will not save us, so we must wake up, organise, and fight back against this digital trap before the 2027 checkpoint closes forever!

[Big Brother Watch @BigBrotherWatch]

📱There's no such thing as a social media ban for under-16s

It means we will ALL face a “papers, please” demand to get online.

Holding platforms to account and giving parents the tools they need are the answer for child safety - not government-issued bans and digital ID checks for all.

[pirate3012 @pirate3012]

But, of course, this is not really about child safety, is it @DavidDavisMP, so existing solutions will not suffice?

[Together @Togetherdec]

"A parent who wants a child-lock on their kid’s phone can switch one on today. For free. They just have to turn it on."

Stephen Jackson of @laworfiction

[Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen]

The President of the messaging app Signal has threatened to STOP all services in the UK due to government regulations and overreach

https://t.co/tRukP1iNEN

[Hull City @HullCity]

Congrats to @liammillar11 with the start for @CANMNT_Official in their opening group stage! 🇨🇦🍁

#hcafc

[The Sentinel Network @thesentinelnet]

Today the Pentagon released its third batch of UAP files. 6 videos, 3 audio recordings.

Four are civilian recordings of orbs the FBI assessed as "highly credible."

Two recreate an event five federal agents reported at a sensitive national security site, a case AARO still has not closed.

The three NASA tapes include an Apollo 16 debrief where a voice says, "could be an alien starbase or something, I don't know."

We cut all nine into one supercut.

https://t.co/tMwUSoPR6U

[Alex Armstrong @Alexarmstrong]

Read this open statement by Signal and your jaw will hit the floor.

Govts always use “protecting children” as their guise for more control and censorship.

I interviewed a prev Govt minister, who wrote the Online Safety Bill, and asked if they could tell me how a VPN worked. They couldn’t. These are the people writing these laws.

This new tool is another dangerous form of silent oppression that once again uses children’s safety as a guise to control the masses.

We can protect children online, but that starts at home, with parents, not in the Home Office, GCHQ, Apple, Google, Microsoft or Samsung.