From VPN Bans to a Control Society When safety becomes the excuse for surveillance There’s a quiet shift happening in the Western world. Governments that once spoke the language of liberty are now speaking the language of safety. And somewhere along that path, safety became the justification for surveillance. The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act is the latest example. While it doesn’t outright ban VPNs, political voices and media headlines have started framing them as a “loophole” that lets children bypass age-verification systems on adult sites. The proposed solution? Limit or even block VPN usage. It sounds noble: protect the children. But behind that slogan hides a deeper danger. Safety vs. Freedom A VPN (Virtual Private Network) is not a threat to children — it’s a tool for privacy, security, and free access to information. To demonize it is to mistake the symptom for the cause. The problem is not that VPNs exist; the problem is that we’re raising generations who aren’t being taught how to handle freedom. True safety is not created by walls, but by wisdom. You don’t protect a child by hiding the world from them — you protect them by teaching them how the world works. Every act of over-protection creates under-responsibility. And when that pattern spreads to adults, it builds a society that obeys before it understands. The Slippery Slope Once you start banning privacy tools “for safety,” the logic becomes endless. First VPNs. Then encrypted messaging. Then anonymous browsing. Then — inevitably — digital ID verification just to access a website. Imagine the absurdity: “Please log in with your government ID to continue to Pornhub.” Sorry, this is your third visit this week — your viewing limit has been reached. What begins as protection ends as permission — the state granting you the right to see, say, or think. And once the infrastructure of control is built, it never stays confined to its original purpose. History shows this pattern clearly: control expands until resistance becomes inconvenient. Education, Not Erasure There is a better way. Instead of banning privacy, we can educate for responsibility. Instead of outsourcing moral duty to algorithms, we can teach digital ethics at home and in schools. Instead of shaming privacy, we can normalize it — the same way we normalize locks on our doors or curtains on our windows. Because a free society is not one without risk. It’s one where people are trusted to navigate risk with awareness. The Final Thought We live in a peculiar age — an age where freedom is marketed as danger, and obedience is sold as virtue. The net is tightening, quietly and politely. Not through violence, but through terms of service. And the moment citizens accept surveillance as safety, there truly will be no way back. But consciousness cannot be banned. As long as there are people who choose to see, to question, and to teach the next generation how to think — not just how to comply — there is hope. Don’t ban the tool. Strengthen the human.

The Digital Twin — A Copy Without a Soul Somewhere between convenience and control, a quiet revolution is taking place. Governments and corporations are building what they call digital twins — virtual replicas of citizens, made of data, not flesh. They say it’s about efficiency, security, better service. But beneath that polished language hides a fundamental shift: you are no longer treated as a person, but as a profile. Your twin is made from fragments of your life — your payments, your medical files, your education, your browsing history, your travel patterns. Each piece seems harmless on its own. But together, they form a reflection so complete that the system no longer needs you. It only needs the data that behaves like you. And when questioned, officials will say, “No, we’re not storing you. We’re only storing information about your digital representation.” As if separating the map from the territory makes the surveillance disappear. But we know better. When decisions are made — about credit, about travel, about taxes, about trust — it’s your digital twin who stands trial first. If the algorithm misjudges, it’s not the twin who suffers. It’s you. They call it “progress”. They call it “smart governance”. But smart for whom? And to what end? A society that replaces people with profiles may become efficient, but it also becomes heartless. A twin without a soul cannot forgive, cannot understand context, cannot see the nuance between a mistake and a crime. It only knows patterns, probabilities, and flags of suspicion. And once that twin exists, it’s no longer you who controls it — it controls you. We are told it’s for our safety. But what kind of safety requires every citizen to be monitored, indexed, and pre-judged? True safety comes from trust, not tracking. A human being cannot be reduced to data without losing something essential — the invisible spark that makes you you. When we trade that for efficiency, we may gain speed, but we lose meaning. And in that loss, something sacred disappears — quietly, like a shadow that forgot where its light came from #digitalrwin #cbdc #spy