Government is not the divine source of ‘truth’

‘Unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth,’ declared New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, in a chilling speech related to Covid health advice.

The 2020 clip was dug up by The Daily Wire yesterday, reminding the world what the crucible of government overreach looked like from the sober reality of 2022.

And it is not a pretty sight.

The hubris, delusional self-importance, and elevation of government to a position of ‘absolute unquestioned truth’ is a sign that New Zealand’s leadership has gone beyond its charter and waded into a China-style system of absolutism.

They were not alone in this behaviour.

There is no clearer indication of an authoritarian sickness taking hold than comments like this from the Prime Minister.

‘You can trust us as a source of that information. You can also trust the Director General of Health and the Ministry of Health. For that information, do feel free to visit – at any time – to clarify any rumour you may hear.

‘Otherwise, dismiss anything else. We will continue to be your single source of truth.

‘We will provide information frequently. We will share everything we can. Everything else you see – a grain of salt. And so I really ask people to focus.’

We will continue to be your single source of truth? At no point, for any reason, should a government in a civilised nation declare itself the final word on ‘truth’. It is why the video clip of Ardern grinning her way through this fit of egotism has gone viral.

Government is a service. An administrator. A protector (but not a parent). And a law-maker – although it spends far too much time doing this.

Since the pandemic, ministers have grown to crave the spotlight while the bureaucratic underbelly has found a power-niche latched to the public interest by fear. It is not a good combination.

It is easy enough to point out the obvious flaw in Ardern’s reasoning. Health advice coming out of governments around the world – including New Zealand – has been wrong. Repeatedly. And it is never corrected or the state-issued fines returned with an apology.

That is without considering the undemocratic nastiness that the government’s position led to where epidemiologists were quoted as saying horrific things like ‘with no jab, no job, no fun’ or inaccurate alarmist predictions like ‘if 95 per cent of the population is vaccinated, there will be death, disease, and hospitalisations for the last five per cent’. This is not being reflected in figures.

The last two years have revealed the weakness, not strength, of centralised expert opinion.

Those nations that chose to diverge from World Health Organisation advice provide us with a rare insight into better options, such as Sweden who respected the individual sovereignty of its citizens. Without disobedient nations, we would never know that this approach worked.

For the majority of nations, the population has been treated to the silencing of dissenting medical voices, threats to de-register practitioners who did not believe it was in the best interests of their patients to expose them to unnecessary risk, and the sacking of thousands of health workers – all of whom with more knowledge in the industry than Prime Ministers or Presidents – that did not agree with the government decree.

Ardern’s statement in particular undermines the founding principle of science – which is that science is an evolving system of knowledge whose expansion and advancement relies on diversity of thought, competing ideas, fresh data, and open challenges.

The suggestion that a government has some sort of special ordained knowledge on the subject, as though the Moses of Wuhan dragged a few plastic tablets down and laid out the divine law to Ardern’s advisers, is a nonsense.

Is mask-wearing a good idea? We don’t know. The government insists that it is essential to safeguarding the population but wide studies on the topic have repeatedly failed to produce the physical evidence necessary to justify mandates while incidental evidence pouring in from mask-wearing nations shows no clear indication it has any impact at all.

Were lockdowns the right approach? They were ordered by the government, and yet there is an increasingly opinion that they did more harm than good and should never be attempted again.

What about the Ardern pursuit of a Covid Zero New Zealand? How many press conferences were given insisting that New Zealand had conquered the virus and that government measures would protect New Zealand forever? These policies are now being labelled as ‘absurd’ and ‘damaging’. Most disagreed with the government advice at the time and warned that they were living in a fantasy bubble, prolonging and even worsening an inevitable outbreak – which is exactly what New Zealand is experiencing now with one of the fastest growing outbreaks in the world.

And as for vaccines – that house of cards is crumbling, globally, where adverse reactions and the deaths of young, healthy people pile up around leaders who mandated compliance against every social norm.

You could say that these were mistakes, but a government with absolute truth does not make mistakes. The presence of these grave errors prove exactly why the earlier statements should not be made.

There’s a reason governments are desperate to become the central source of information and truth – fending off opposing thought requires evidence and robust debate. Ministers do not want health policy challenged on merit because it would lose. It signals political weakness.

Hopefully, more of these clips will resurface so that those who promoted vile segregation, outrageous infringements on civil liberty, and general cruelty toward their fellow human beings can be remembered. Revisiting what happened in 2020 is the only way to stop it happening in the next pandemic.

Hearing the near deification of government should send a warning signal to every citizen that their democracy is heading in the direction of authoritarianism under the guise of ‘safety’ and public health.

The government can declare itself the source of all truth, but that does not make it true.

New Zealand call for TikTok to be removed from Apple and Google app stores

An alarming report suggests a huge amount of data is shared with the Chinese Government.
An alarming report suggests a huge amount of data is shared with the Chinese Government. Photo credit: Getty Images

A Kiwi CEO has backed calls for social media platform TikTok to be removed from Google and Apple’s app stores amid concerns over users’ data.

Alex Ford, founder and CEO of Socialike, told Newshub he agreed with US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chief Brendan Carr that the app, which is majority owned by the Chinese Government, was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

That meant data from Kiwis, including biometric identifiers, was likely to be going to China with little control over what happens to it.

He also believed Government action was required to better protect Kiwis from predatory behaviour, but feared the law-making process in New Zealand worked too slowly to do so amid the fast-moving technology sector.

In an open letter on Twitter to the technology giants, the FCC’s Carr offered his analysis regarding an “alarming report” regarding the “vast troves of sensitive data” the app collects on US users.

“TikTok is owned by Beijing-based ByteDance, an organisation that is beholden to the Communist Party of China and required by Chinese law to comply with the PRC’s surveillance demands,” Carr wrote.

“TikTok is not what it appears to be on the surface. It is not just an app for sharing funny videos or memes.

“That’s the sheep’s clothing. At its core, TikTok functions as a sophisticated surveillance tool that harvests extensive amounts of personal and sensitive data,” he continued.

“Indeed, TikTok collects everything from search and browsing histories to keystroke patterns and biometric identifiers, including faceprints-which researchers have said might be used in unrelated facial recognition technology– and voiceprints.

“It collects location data as well as draft messages and metadata, plus it has collected the text, images, and videos that are stored on a device’s clipboard.”

However that should come as no surprise, according to Carr.

“Within its own borders, the PRC has developed some of the most invasive and omnipresent surveillance capabilities in the world to maintain authoritarian control.”

Ford told Newshub it was clear TikTok wasn’t just a platform for teenagers to dance to their favourite songs, and he had avoided using the app because of data concerns.

“From the early stages I did see it as being a bit of a shady platform,” he said.

“I think maybe [Kiwis] are a little bit naive when it comes to these platforms and it may be that we do need to do more research before jumping on them.

“We’ve got the FCC making these claims and attempting to regulate the social media space. In New Zealand we don’t really have that and there doesn’t seem to be anything protecting or educating consumers on these platforms,” Ford told Newshub.

“Humans are sheep, we follow trends. So I think there needs to be more education and levels of regulation before these things are opened up to New Zealanders.”

CONCERNS OVER TIMESCALES

Socialike has already taken a stand against social media companies which it feels isn’t necessarily operating in the best interests of its users, which included ditching Facebook as a platform it used with its customers.

That came down to the impact the company had had on Kiwis over the last few years, he said.

“You’ve got the Christchurch terrorist attack and the role they played in that but then you’ve also got the spread of hate misinformation disinformation through COVID.”

“There’s nothing regulating or stopping these platforms in New Zealand from being what they are.

“We’ve written to the New Zealand government, raising our concerns, obviously,” Ford told Newshub.

“And the response from the government was, ‘oh, well, we’re working on a bill that will see some sort of regulation on these platforms but it’s going to take another couple of years before it comes into action’.

“Well that’s too slow. These platforms work much faster than that. I think if we wanted to get government regulation, or the government involved in it today, we’re not in a place to be able to do that. And it’s putting New Zealanders in harm’s way.”

That meant Google and Apple withdrawing the app was a sensible option to stop Kiwis unwittingly sharing data with China. But he felt that was “highly unlikely” due to both companies’ reliance on China for manufacturing.

“I think we’re now at a point where we need to put a stop to tiptoeing around China and the Chinese situation. We need to stand up to them.

“And I think if Apple and Google stand up to them and remove TikTok from the app store, it’s a step in the right direction,” Ford said.

According to a CNBC report, TikTok said it was “among the most scrutinised platforms from a security standpoint, and we aim to remove any doubt about the security of US user data”.

“That’s why we hire experts in their fields, continually work to validate our security standards, and bring in reputable, independent third parties to test our defences.” it said.

Ultimately, however, it’s up to those using social media platforms to understand that the data it’s supplying may be far beyond what is expected.

Are you comfortable potentially sharing your face, voice, internet history and keystroke patterns with the Chinese Government?