• henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    So the implication is that keeping the masses in check is the primary goal and protecting the children was the incidental part?

    • fluckx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      We do this to find criminals, drugsdealers, paedophiles and terrorists. MEPS are never part of any of those groups.

      Source: trust me bro >.>

      Rules for thee and not for me.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Just remember “terrorism” is a generic term these days. Russia invaded Ukraine over “terrorism.”

        It wouldn’t shock me if they started carefully monitoring political views to detect anything the state doesn’t like.

        • Socsa
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Don’t fall victim to language nihilism. It’s much better to say “hey buddy, that’s not terrorism, you are a fucking liar and your deliberate misuse of language disrespects the real victims of terrorism.” They want us to lose objective truth, which is why it’s so important to fight back.

    • XTL@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Protecting children has never been an intention or an outcome with these laws.