reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Life is about to change for every Australian. This bill will be misused because this bill is written to be misused. No hiding behind anonymous accounts or faulted false addresses. You can expect a knock on your door at home, work, or school as we're seeing happening in other countries with digital identity already in The government knows digital ID will be compulsory by the device of preventing access to government services, banking services, air travel, and major purchases for any Australian who does not have a digital ID. The digital ID will in effect create a live data file of your movements, purchases, accounts, and associates containing reference to every piece of data being held in the private and government sector as a first step in a wider agenda.

The plan involves the Attorney General and Minister for Home Affairs developing a package of legislative reforms to crack down on those who spread hate, division and radicalisation. The National Security Committee has agreed five changes: 1) Aggravated hate speech offence for preachers and leaders who promote violence. 2) Increased penalties for hate speech promoting violence. 3) Making hate an aggravating factor in sentencing crimes for online threats and harassment. 4) Developing a regime for listing organisations whose leaders engage in hate speech promoting violence or racial hatred. 5) Developing a narrow federal offence for serious vilification based on race and/or advocating racial supremacy. Additionally, the Minister for Home Affairs will have new powers to cancel or reject visas for those who spread hate and division in this country, or would do so if they were allowed to come here. The East Safety Commissioner, the Special Envoy and the Department of Communications will work together to provide online safety advice to address anti Semitism. Over the coming days, there will be more information about the government’s response to Sunday’s atrocity, including on gun control, and it is noted that New South Wales is moving on that next week.

Speaker 0 argues that it is difficult to hear, but it is time to limit the First Amendment in order to protect it. They state that we need to control the platforms—specifically all social platforms—and to stack rank the authenticity of every person who expresses themselves online. They say we should take control over what people are saying based on that ranking. The government should check all the social media.

Life in Australia is about to change with the introduction of a central digital identifier for every citizen. This legislation is seen as significant, allowing control over individuals' movements, purchases, and associations. Those who resist may face restrictions on government services, banking, and travel. The digital ID will create a detailed data file, enabling surveillance and control. Avoiding this system is nearly impossible, as it will be used to identify and punish those who speak out against the government. Expect increased monitoring and enforcement, with no anonymity or escape.

The Australian government is considering a radical plan to tackle social media abuse. Users would be required to provide 100 points of identification, such as a driver's license or passport, when using platforms like Facebook and Twitter. This would give police access to their accounts, aiming to crack down on online abuse. Those who engage in bad behavior could face defamation suits or even criminal prosecution. The recommendations were made by a federal parliamentary inquiry and are being considered by the Morrison government. The chairman believes that removing the anonymity of users could be beneficial.

Social media sites must be held responsible and understand their power. They speak directly to millions of people without oversight or regulation, and this has to stop. The same rule has to apply across platforms; there can't be one rule for Facebook and another for Twitter.

We propose linking digital identities like France Identité or La Poste's digital identity to Facebook accounts. This would confirm that there is a real person behind the account and provide an encrypted code that only authorities can decipher in specific cases of illegal activity. The idea is to know who you are, even if you use a pseudonym and a cat photo on Facebook. Anonymity is not the goal; instead, we want to associate your account with a digital identity to ensure you are not anonymous in the end.

The UK's Online Safety Act, similar to laws in Australia and proposed legislation in the US (COSA), aims to regulate online content, ostensibly to protect children. Critics argue it grants the government power to define and remove "harmful" content, potentially censoring dissent. The act pressures encrypted apps like WhatsApp and Signal to monitor user chats, possibly requiring the breaking of end-to-end encryption. Age verification measures, including face scans and government IDs, are required for sites with adult content, but could expand to all user-generated platforms, raising privacy concerns. Critics argue criminals will bypass the law while law-abiding citizens face surveillance and censorship. The act allows Ofcom to order takedowns or block websites, granting the government indirect control over online speech. The UK government is reportedly using the act to censor protest footage. Concerns are raised about politicians being targeted for questioning government policies. Similar legislation is underway in the US, and the UN aims to implement a global social credit system. Australia will implement age checks from search engines. Apple has patented technology to identify people by body parts, even when their face isn't visible. These steps are seen as incremental moves towards a digital gulag, with governments controlling online activity and purchases.

Governments worldwide are imposing strict regulations on social media platforms, potentially ending freedom of speech. The European Union aims to give NGOs and state sponsors control over content moderation by requiring tech companies to share data with vetted researchers. In the US, the RESTRICT Act threatens severe penalties for accessing blacklisted websites through virtual private networks. Ireland may imprison citizens for possessing material deemed hateful, while Canada allows state agencies to filter online content. Australia grants government officials the power to compel social media companies to remove posts. These policies have been introduced quietly, with little media coverage or public outcry. This marks a significant moment in the history of the internet, as governments gain the ability to control the information people have access to.

- Under Victoria's civil anti vilification scheme, starts in 2026, the speaker of a vilifying statement generally needs to be identifiable to be held to a to to be held accountable. We recognize that this could protect cowards who hide behind anonymous profiles to spread hate and stoke fear. That's why Victoria will spearhead new laws to hold social media companies and anonymous users to account and will, as point, a respected jurist to unlock the legislative path forward.

Social media sites should be held responsible for their power, as they directly address millions without oversight or regulation, and this must end. There can't be one rule for Facebook and another for Twitter; the same rule must apply to both.

The Canadian government is proposing a bill, C-63, to combat online hate speech by defining and punishing hatred. Offenses motivated by hate could lead to life imprisonment. The bill also allows for pre-crime reporting and anonymous complaints, with rewards for accusers. Critics fear abuse of power and suppression of free speech. Prime Minister Trudeau's past accusations of hate against protesters raise concerns about misuse of the proposed legislation. People are mobilizing to oppose the bill.

Your wake up call. The British government is pushing forward with plans for a national digital ID system. They've called it the Brit card and if that name doesn't send a chill down your spine you have not been paying attention. This is about building a centralized state controlled digital identity system that could be used to link your finances, your medical history, your travel movements, your social media activity, even your social activity in real life and more. It's quite frankly a digital dog tag and once it's clipped around your neck, you will not be able to take it off. There are active conversations now about linking spending capabilities to your digital identity. That means if your ID is flagged, limited or suspended, I don't know because maybe you said some hurt words on social media, that will mean you can't access your own money.

This is a new report from Blacklock’s Reporter about the federal push for a national digital ID. The article states that federal regulators yesterday said they are “working to establish digital credentials for the public without parliamentary go ahead.” MPs have repeatedly rejected the introduction of any national electronic digital ID systems as expensive and risky. The notice, shared by Shared Services Canada, the Federal ID Department, says: “Any new system, and here's the kicker, any new system should allow regulators to revoke credentials,” but it did not elaborate, and it did not explain if enrollment would be mandatory. The presenter emphasizes that, despite legislators’ objections, the Liberal government is “quietly going around talking about building a digital ID” that would permit credential revocation, and there is no explanation about enrollment being mandatory. The speaker frames this as part of the Prime Minister’s hidden agenda, suggesting action happens “through the back door, through these, like, sneaky little contract things.” On the political response, the presenter says the Conservative Party will oppose the move. He cites Liberal Bill C-63, described as their “massive censorship bill,” and says he tabled an opposing bill that would “keep Canadians safe online, but quote expressly prohibit the use of a digital ID,” noting that the principle is written into his bill. He highlights Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s opposition to digital IDs, pointing to Poilievre’s 2022 Twitter posts where he said government attempts to impose digital IDs and other intrusive tracking and surveillance are “an attack on our freedom. I will end them.” The presenter notes Poilievre has continued to tweet about the issue and has a petition linked on his Twitter page, with the message that “common sense conservatives will ban mandatory digital IDs, full stop.” He asserts that conservatives are fighting this and mentions that the story is not being reported by outlets like CBC. The presenter references ongoing efforts to expose government actions beyond what mainstream media covers, alleging that Trudeau’s censorship bills suppress such stories. He urges viewers to share the video and click subscribe, and mentions a link in the video description to a full breakdown about an investigation his colleague and another MP are asking the Competition Bureau to undertake. In closing, the presenter reiterates that Liberal leadership uses back-channel methods to push agendas, and that the Conservative Party, led by Poilievre, will do everything in its power to stop a mandatory digital ID. The report ends by highlighting the headline: “Fed's proposed national digital ID.”

A bill called the Kids Online Safety Act (COSA) has been sponsored by 40 senators from both parties. The bill aims to require individuals to upload their driver's license before using their First Amendment rights on the internet. It claims to protect children from restricted content but will actually restrict internet access for everyone and require proof of age for viewing any controversial topics. The bill allows attorney generals to sue internet companies like TikTok and Facebook if they don't ensure that users viewing controversial content are over 18. This will require companies to collect users' driver's license information. The bill is bipartisan, with senators from different states supporting it. Critics argue that it's a way to trace individuals' online posts back to their home addresses.

The government is considering a plan to combat social media abuse by requiring Australians to provide 100 points of identification, like a driver's license, when using platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Police would have access to these accounts to crack down on online abuse, potentially leading to defamation suits or criminal charges. These measures aim to discourage bad behavior and were suggested by a federal parliamentary inquiry. The Morrison government is contemplating these reforms to address the issue of anonymity online.

YouTube will use AI to monitor user behavior to determine if US viewers are over or under 18. If the AI incorrectly estimates a user's age, they can verify it with a credit card or government ID. This is purportedly to protect children from harmful content, but it may require adults to link their identity to online activity. In Australia, by December 2025, users may be required to ID to use Apple and Google Maps, enabling government tracking. Age verification software trials have failed, and biometric data via facial scanning may be required for access. This could regulate information and censor content. The Australian government plans to enforce this on platforms like Rumble. Julie Inman Grant, formerly of Microsoft and the World Economic Forum, has implemented loopholes requiring constant adult verification, even on maps. Apple has a patent to track users via clothing, body parts, and gait. This is described as a social credit system coming to the Internet. Australian senator Ralph Babette has introduced a motion challenging these online safety rules.

Our incitement hatred legislation needs to be updated for the social media age. It's not just the platforms that are responsible, but also the individuals who post messages and images online that incite hatred and violence. We need new laws to go after them individually.

Age verification is a normalization of identification. It's the introduction of digital surveillance. It's the end of privacy, and it's giving the state and corporation excessive powers and creating more KYC honeypots. The speaker thinks we should fight that because we're now going to start seeing this crippling in to any centralised, large social media website.

Many of us warned that COVID was the catalyst for Agenda twenty thirty, a UN driven plan to put the entire earth into a digital surveillance grid that would mean the introduction of digital currency, digital ID, a social credit system where your online activities are directly linked to your ability to access money. Australia introduced a voluntary digital ID in May 2024, and as of December, just over a year later, Australians will not even be able to do a Google search without verifying themselves online. Now in lockstep, The UK has announced they will also be pressing ahead with digital ID. Digital ID will give you access to government services. One option under consideration would give digital IDs to all people legally entitled to reside in Britain, whether citizens or those with legal immigration status, the Financial Times said.

Elon Musk is facing criticism for not removing a stabbing video from his platform globally. An Australian senator called for Musk to be jailed, sparking a debate on global internet censorship. Australia's top internet censor, Julie Inman Grant, boasts of her censorship powers and leads a global online safety regulators network with other countries. Grant aims to crack down on VPNs and privacy to control online content. European Union's Vera Jurova supports censorship to prevent events like January 6th. These actions raise concerns about government control over the internet worldwide.

The UK plans to imprison citizens for up to 15 years for viewing what the government labels as far-right propaganda online. This raises significant questions about the control over online algorithms and the consequences of inadvertently encountering such content. Who defines what constitutes far-right propaganda? Given current standards, even posts by figures like JK Rowling could be classified this way. Concerns also arise about the enforcement of these laws, reminiscent of existing social media regulations on hate speech and misinformation. The situation seems to be escalating rapidly, prompting a call for awareness and support from those observing these developments.

Speaker 0 argues that anonymity on social media stands in contrast to everyday norms in their countries, where masks on streets, unlicensed cars, IDs for packages, and names when purchasing hunting weapons are standard requirements. They point out that social networks currently allow people to roam freely without linking profiles to real identities, which they say enables misinformation, hate speech, and cyber harassment by facilitating bot activity and reducing accountability for actions. They contend that such an anomaly cannot continue. In a democracy, they claim, citizens have the right to privacy, but not the right to anonymity or impunity, because anonymity and impunity would undermine social coexistence. Based on this premise, they advocate for pushing forward the principle of pseudonymity as the functioning element of social media, and for forcing all platforms to link every user account to a European digital identity wallet. With this system, citizens would still be able to use nicknames if they choose, but in the case of a crime, public authorities would be able to connect those nicknames to real people and hold them responsible. The underlying assertion is that accountability is not an obstacle to freedom of speech, but rather an essential complement to it.

A Trump victory signals change, particularly in addressing censorship. Meanwhile, Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is pushing a bill that threatens free speech, criminalizing dissent against the government. This authoritarian legislation mirrors previous warnings about the rise of a zero trust model, with measures like mandatory ID linking for social media use. The government is overstepping parental rights, claiming it will care for children instead. Australians must pressure politicians to uphold their rights and reject this bill entirely, rather than seeking amendments. The focus should be on restoring freedoms and ensuring that politicians serve the public, not control it. Support minor parties opposing this bill and advocate for a bill of rights to prevent future authoritarianism. It’s time for Australians to reclaim their country.