Deutsch   English   Français   Español   Türkçe   Polski   Русский   Rumână   Українська   العربية
Home   About   Contact

Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!




Protect youth? Abolish freedom! – Social media ban under 16 is really an attack on anonymity


Why the social media ban under 16 is really an attack on anonymity – and why politicians want it



Of course, it’s about the children

It’s always about the children. When politicians today call for a social media ban for under-16s, it sounds like care, responsibility, protection. Who could be against that? Only cynics, tech corporations, and irresponsible libertarians, so the narrative goes. But behind this moral smoke screen lies something completely different: arguably the biggest attack on online anonymity since the Internet began.

George Orwell wouldn’t even smile tiredly anymore. He would simply nod.

A ban that isn’t enforced isn’t a ban

A law that isn’t enforced isn’t a law, it’s a campaign poster. So a U16 ban has to be monitored. And you can only monitor what you verify. Age. Identity. Person. The path is thus clearly laid out.

Age verification is identity verification – anything else is smoke and mirrors

The internet doesn’t know age. It only knows data. Anyone who seriously believes you can verify someone’s age without knowing their identity also believes in CO₂-neutral wars and bureaucracy reduction through new regulations.

ID card. Video ID. Digital state ID. Bank details. Pick a term – the result is the same: you are identifiable.

Maybe not publicly. But definitely. Permanently. Retrievable.

“But only for kids!” – the oldest trick of power

Of course, they say: Only minors must identify themselves. Technically, that makes about as much sense as a smoking ban only for non-smokers. Platforms don’t know who is underage. So everyone must prove their age. Anything else would be an open barn door. This turns age verification into the norm – and anonymity into an exception that practically no longer exists.

Anonymity dies not loudly, but bureaucratically

No one bans anonymity directly. That would be too honest. You just make it impossible. Because even if your real name isn’t displayed: the account is linked to you. The state can request the data. The platform stores it “for compliance reasons.” Whistleblowers? Political dissidents? Victims of stalking or domestic abuse? Collateral damage. For the greater good.

Why do politicians really want this?

Not because of the children. Children are just the door opener. Politicians hate anonymity for a simple reason: Anonymous citizens cannot be controlled. They are hard to intimidate. They are hard to sanction. They are hard to surveil. Anonymity is a power asymmetry – in favor of the citizens. And power asymmetries are not tolerated.

From age verification to thought policing

Once the infrastructure exists, it will be used. Not if, but when. Today: “youth protection.” Tomorrow: “combating hate speech.” The day after tomorrow: “protecting democracy.”

And eventually it becomes clear: Whoever speaks is identified. Whoever provokes is marked. Whoever disrupts is sorted out. All legal. All well-intentioned. All inevitable. Orwell waves – but we are building the screen ourselves.

The kicker: The surveillance state doesn’t come with boots, but with forms. Not with violence, but with terms and conditions. Not with threats, but with “child protection.” And the scariest part? Many applaud it.

A social media ban under 16 is not a youth protection law

It is an identification law. A registration requirement. A frontal attack on anonymous public space. George Orwell warned about Big Brother. We are installing him ourselves – and calling it progress.



Author: AI-Translation - АИИ  | 

Jeden Tag neue Angebote bis zu 70 Prozent reduziert

Other articles:

Do It Like the District Administrator! Deadlines? Utterly Irrelevant!

Welcome to the world of modern administration! A place where deadlines are generously treated as mere “suggestions”—at least when they apply to the administration. Citizens, ... zum Artikel

District Administrator Against Press Freedom – Abysses in Burgenlandkreis

On 15.10.2024, the second meeting of the district committee took place. A public meeting, where citizens are also allowed to ask questions. And I thought to myself: Hey, this could... zum Artikel

The Middle Finger of District Administrator Götz Ulrich and the Shy Representatives

It took a long time. After many months, a letter from the district administrator regarding my objection to the prohibition of video recording of the district committee meeting on 1... zum Artikel

der offizielle Kanal der Bürgerstimme auf Telegram   der offizielle Kanal der Bürgerstimme auf YouTube   Bürgerstimme auf Facebook

Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions:
via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12

or via bank transfer
IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719
BIC: SUMUIE22XXX
Account holder: Michael Thurm


Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips   Imprint / Disclaimer