NEW BOT Телеграм, страница

Social media posts that are pro digital ID are currently mostly from politicians & media outlets, although some large "influencer" accounts have started to make some noise. However, look out for the subtler posts from smaller, seemingly random "normal" people saying things like "all this fuss about digital ID makes me laugh, they have all our ID already" or "all you X users with a blue tick paid to give your ID for that, so what's the problem". This is psychological manipulation, through the technique of false equivalence. These types of arguments oversimplify complex issues, equate distinct scenarios, & subtly undermine legitimate concerns to normalise or dismiss opposition

False equivalence can be a tool of gaslighting when it’s used to undermine legitimate concerns, by reframing them as overreactions and inconsistencies. It is a rhetorical tactic that compares two situations as if they are morally, functionally, or contextually equivalent, when they are not

This manipulation works by:

normalising surveillance through implying that digital IDs are no different from existing data collection, which is false

deflecting scrutiny by redirecting focus from privacy or control risks to a false sense of inevitability, ("they already have your data")

shaming critics by painting opponents as inconsistent or overreacting, leveraging social pressure to discourage dissent

False equivalence reduces a complex policy (mandatory digital ID with potential for surveillance, exclusion of 3M+ offline citizens, or data misuse) to everyday actions like using online banking or verifying on X. This ignores scale, intent, and consequences (e.g., government vs. private control, mandatory vs. voluntary)

By saying “they already have your ID” or “you paid for a blue tick,” these arguments imply critics are naive or hypocritical, sowing self-doubt. This aligns with gaslighting. The “fuss makes me laugh” tone also minimises and shames dissenters, framing them as out-of-touch/paranoid. This taps into social conformity, discouraging public opposition, especially when paired with authority appeals

The exact “blue tick” or “they have our ID” phrasing didn’t appear in the initial speeches by politicians but guess what. Those sentiments surfaced in news coverage and replies to Starmer’s posts on social media. This suggests false equivalence is more common in secondary discourse (e.g., comments from smaller (likely govt operated) accounts), which are then amplified (on purpose) by large platforms such as BBC and GB news

Please note that there will be repetition of this theme going forward as a way to embed all of the above into people's psyche through manipulation intensity: Subtle and policy-wrapped, rather than overt propaganda, it works by emotional leveraging, social shaming and normalisation, potentially eroding resistance over time and wearing down skeptics

In conclusion false equivalence, as in “they already have our ID” or “you paid for a blue tick,” is a manipulative tactic that oversimplifies digital ID risks, shames critics, and normalises state control by equating it to routine actions

Know thy enemy

25 views11:31