Hacker News Reader

Comment by ParksNet | Hacker News Reader

The EU is just following the WEF agenda:

https://sociable.co/government-and-policy/wef-wto-global-dig...

Next step will be Digital Identity required to post online, and police action against wrongthink.

We've already seen Digital Identities used to unperson anyone who doesn't accept (arguably dangerous and experimental) medical treatments.

View on HN

I don't think the people who made this site are interested in presenting an honest analysis of this topic. It looks like straight up propaganda, with a massive amount of ads.

Can you find me a source that presents more than one perspective on this topic, like perhaps on Wikipedia?

The UK is already pushing this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-bil...

"Requiring Category 1 services to ensure adult users are given the option to verify their identity, and tools to have more control over the legal content that they see and who they interact with — this would include providing adults with the option not to interact with unverified users."

What starts as 'an option to verify their identity' will soon become 'must verify their identity'.

Authorities in Australia have already arrested people for online opposition to COVID lockdowns:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54007824

That post made me laugh out loud!

> It looks like straight up propaganda

> Can you find me a source that presents more than one perspective on this topic, like perhaps on Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is pure propaganda these days. The founder even says so himself. https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site...

Lots of well sourced, verifiable information here:

https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/01/investigative-reports/s...

I'm sorry to condescend, but do you have a therapist? It might be healthy to touch base with normies once in a while.

I don't think it's unhealthy to consider 2nd and 3rd order consequences of upcoming policies. What is unhealthy and historically documented as potentially dangerous is accusing your opposition of mental illness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_...

What a classic, I remember when people would call you crazy for claiming that governments were working with corporations to perform mass domestic surveillance

There's a limit to what we can extrapolate from someone being right about something once. It's probably somewhere between〝Google is working with the CIA…〞and〝…to identify children with high levels of adrenochrome〞

Indeed.

Do you think extrapolating that governments and corporations may use a universal digital ID for mass surveillance, from the proven fact that governments and corporations work together to perform mass surveillance, is within that limit of valid speculation?

Yes, that statement seems perfectly reasonable to me. The proposal, depending on its design (support for pseudonymity?), has potential to solve some security problems, but could cause others.

It's a conspiracy theory until it turns out there really is a conspiracy.

...or until you drive to Mexico and murder your family with a spear gun.

https://nypost.com/2022/06/16/qanon-follower-matthew-coleman...

But perhaps it's yet another layer of the onion! /s

I had hoped my comment would come across a little gentler than that.

People can believe what they want, but I when I read a comment that expresses alarm over matters that, from my point of view, are utter nonissues, it makes me hope the author - for their own peace of mind - leaves a little room for doubt.

Let me guess, you believe that there has been a pandemic that was a genuine threat to humanity over the last two years. And that coerced mandatory vaccines using a novel technology under emergency use authorization is completely acceptable, as were the accompanying discriminatory vaccine passport systems in countries with well over 80% of the population was "vaccinated" while completely ignoring the concept of naturally acquired immunity. Meanwhile massive amounts of censorship and doctors being fired for questioning the official line.

I think maybe you are the one that is living in cloud cuckoo land.

"Two weeks to flatten the curve" so you remember that? How many times do the goalposts need to be moved before you start questioning the narrative?

  you believe that there has been a pandemic that was a genuine threat to humanity

My quick answer: yes. My nuanced answer: a fairly confident yes, providing the "threat to humanity" is that the disease kills or disables maybe 1% of the world.

  coerced mandatory vaccines [...] a novel technology [...] vaccine passport [...] censorship

If I considered the virus to be no big deal, of course I too would oppose all those impingements on rights. Since that is not the case, I am fine with the impingements. I have fantasized on a few occasions that the world had gone 'Covid zero' for 10 days back in 2020. Two weeks living under stronger emergency measures to rid humanity of the virus permanently... might have been worth it.

  I think maybe you are the one that is living in cloud cuckoo land.

If one took the entirety of our views, I doubt that applies to either of us, and if one excepted our pandemic views, it may well be true that I am the less balanced ;)

  "Two weeks to flatten the curve" [...] questioning the narrative?

My take is that people, groups of people, organizations, businesses, governments are all liable to craft self-serving narratives. I have no reason to trust populist-types and conspiracy theorists any more than anyone else; considering Occam's Razor, one has much less reason to trust them.

6 million dead over 2 years, not even 0.1%. Average age of death is equal to or greater than the average life expectancy.

And that's counting everything within 28 days of a positive test.

There are various other diseases that kill far more, yet are ignored. Cancer, heart disease, diabetes. All could be reduced drastically with a healthy lifestyle, and that would help with covid immensely as well. Instead we tried authoritarianism, despite the measures being deemed to do more harm than good in the carefully thought out pandemic guidelines, that were thrown out in panic.

The fact that you think you can achieve zero covid demonstrates that you have very little idea of what you are talking about. How did that work out in China? Various animal reservoirs, inaccurate tests, "asymptomatic cases". You seem to lack a lot of critical thinking on this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com