@eff I didn't have "EFF being deeply corrupt in the stupidest way imaginable" on my bingo card

I hope that boot tastes good

@helloyanis i should clarify: no hard feelings towards you at all! i'm just trying to be pointed and explicit about all this to spark some serious discourse, because it worries me that this (at the very least misguided) initiative is set up to override the voices of concern and dissent that we really need in the spotlight

@helloyanis
Like, is this a psyop? Who exactly at @StopKillingGames is behind this?

Using our signatures to whitewash the age/id verification agenda is completely unacceptable. As presented, this initiative basically rubberstamps whatever "cool" age/id checks gets introduced by those seeking to centralise control over the internet, to police what & whom we're allowed to see, to profile "undesirables", and to harm children by denying them access to life-saving support.

(5/5)

cc @karb

@helloyanis
"Citizens must not be forced to identify themselves to access lawful online content or services unless strictly necessary, proportionate and provided by law."

We're not the ones defining what counts as "lawful", "strictly necessary", "proportionate", or "provided by law".

Furry art could be made illegal. Every grifter is screaming about the absolute irrevocable necessity to "protect children". Laws are being passed that require IDs for everything.

(4/?)

cc @karb @StopKillingGames

@helloyanis
Do we really think that the institutions and companies rolling out these policies that disproportionately target LGBTQ+ and furry communities, systematically reducing our visibility, ability to organise, receive money, and sometimes even just to talk to each other, are going to interpret this the same way we do?

And even *if* - then what of it, once a more right wing govt comes in and declares mentions of LGBTQ+ topics strictly adult-only?

(3/?)

cc @karb @StopKillingGames

@helloyanis
It supposedly wants that "digital identity and age-assurance systems used to access online services in the Union remain voluntary, privacy-preserving and non-discriminatory."

All of these are empty virtue signals. "Voluntary" - yes, you can just lose access to the services and accept it. "Privacy-preserving" - every implementation already calls itself that, and politicians agree. "Non-discriminatory" - well! I need more characters for this one.

(2/?)

cc @karb @StopKillingGames

@helloyanis
That's literally not what the initiative is about.

The title appears promising, and baits absentminded signatures: "No Digital ID & No Age Verification"

But then the text says: "The legislation should require anonymous or pseudonymous proof-of-age"

So do we ban, or do we require? And how is "pseudonymous" any different from an ID?

(1/?)

cc @karb @StopKillingGames