
There is no reason why the Netherlands should be a monarchy. The Royal House is a family of billionaires with a history of exploitation and profiteering. 

'Republikeins Genootschap' was the largest Dutch organization that strives to abolish the monarchy and turn The Netherlands into a democratic republic. Since yesterday, they are called [Republiek](https://republiek.org). I helped them out with a new [Wings](https://wings.dev/)-based website in collaboration with designer [Boris Thorbecke](https://www.thorbecke.one/about-thorbecke), who was responsible for their new visual identity.

Interested in helping them out? [Take a look here](https://republiek.org/articles/doe-mee). Long live the Republic!

---

I you want to stay up to date, you may subscribe to [my Wings newsletter](http://eepurl.com/gtSa71).


It is time for The Netherlands to say goodbye to royalty and become a republic.

New project: Republiek


I finally pulled the plug: I deactivated my Twitter account. It has been consuming my life for a long time now. After a heated discussion about accessibility regarding my website [StopKuddeimmuniteit.nl](https://stopkuddeimmuniteit.nl/), I let myself get carried away a bit, and found myself spending an evening being argumentative instead of constructive.

Some context: for the past year, I have been advocating for a better coronavirus pandemic strategy, as one of the founders of [Containment Nu](https://www.containmentnu.nl), a grassroots human rights organization. Our main challenge was to prove that the Dutch cabinet was intentionally pursuing a strategy based on the build-up of immunity-through-infections (a strategy for which Sweden gets all the credit), which is directly at odds with any attempt to keep infections levels low. 

It took the newly-elected Member of Parliament Sylvana Simons of the burgeoning leftist party BIJ1 – whom I've provided with a digital infrastructure for websites and fundraising – to finally say it out loud in Parliament:

[![Sylvana Simons in Parliament](https://screens.wings.dev/playersylvana-1-.jpg)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0UXo8yAaNA&t=1s)

I built a quite successful 'letter campaign' website at [StopKuddeimmuniteit.nl](https://stopkuddeimmuniteit.nl/) which allows anyone to write an email (or Tweet) at an MP to urge them to vote in favor of a resolution proposed by parties BIJ1 and VOLT to stop pursuing immunity through infections. 

It may not gain a majority, but at least it would force other opposition parties to show their true colors. Most opposition parties have until now merely expressed their confusion about the Dutch strategy, or indicated that they would prefer a strategy based on suppression. What has been lacking is an explicit acknowledgement that the current strategy aims to build up immunity through infections.

However, the copy of my example letters got criticized for being overly long-winded and complex. That was fair, but I got dragged into a heated discussion, and I eventually decided that it was time to stop actively using Twitter

A couple of points I want to make:

- I did not deactivate my account primarily because of this discussion. It was the straw that broke the camel's back, though.
- On [StopKuddeimmuniteit](https://stopkuddeimmuniteit.nl/), I wrote copy that was intended for MP's, allowing anyone to send this copy. Anyone is free to either edit an example letter, or send it as-is. It does not mean it would not be a good idea to have _different_ example letters, just that it is arguably less important here, because the entire point of the website is that it allows you to send complicated explanations to MP's without you having to write (or even really read) them yourself.
- I mean, even though the copy was not very accessible, the website did make it easier to send an email to MPs for anyone. As this was a voluntary effort by one person, I do think it may not be the best example to use when making a point.
- To reiterate: it does not mean it would not be a good idea to have alternative email copy that is more accessible. But it is why I responded in defensive manner, and I think that was not wholly unjustified. I thought Parliament would vote on this today (it will probably be on Thursday), and I started working on this on Saturday morning. Still, I did not really think about accessibility when creating this website, and on reflection, I was also justifying-after-the-fact instead of reflecting on what I could do better. I even think I may have went over the top in some of the letters with my writing style, giving off a slight "look at me being a smart douchebro" kind of vibe. Yikes.
- So, _of course_ the people who simply ask for radical inclusivity and accessibility are always right. Still, I think accusations of being someone who is intentionally exclusive are unjustified and hurtful. Then again, I should be able to just suck that up. But I'd rather use my limited time and resources to create websites and long-form content, instead of arguing on Twitter.com.
- I would like to stress that everyone who demands accessibility deserves our support, and [GeenDorHout](https://geendorhout.com/) does so especially. Even some comments that may have been a bit overly 'angry' are justified in the grand scheme of things, if you take into consideration that people who require accessibility are so often ignored, dismissed or ridiculed. They have every right to be angry. (And more often than not, people (especially women) who are accused of being angry are simply calm and not taking your shit.) They have my sympathy and solidarity. Anyone who tries to paint a picture in which they are the bad guys does not.


## Update, April 27th, 23:16

One issue that came up, and that I might as well clarify, was about a domain name I had registered when I wanted to create a website for the 'Geen Dor Hout' initiative. It is something I do somewhat regularly because I can create campaigning websites very quickly with [Wings](https://wings.dev/), but I understand how that comes across as patronizing.

They weren't interested, which is fine, and I agreed to transfer the domain to them, so I gave them a transfer code. Now, I do remember being asked to do *something* technical that allowed them to... do *something*. I thought it had something to do with getting an SSL certificate that would allow them to use the domain more quickly. I did not immediately understand what the issue was, and this happened in a time when I was overwhelmed with stuff to the point of having a burn out. I forgot about it, and was under the impression I had at least done what was necessary to transfer the domain. 

It were untruthful statements like these, that were in my view posted in bad faith, that I quote-tweeted, in order to defend myself against accusations that I found hurtful. I have spent so much time fighting for a better covid strategy that I am overly sensitive to accusations that question my intentions and integrity. I even noticed someone saying that I am trash and that Twitter is better off without me, and even though I should be able to suck that up, I decided that I did not want to. Maybe I *am* taking up too much space, so I figured I might as well remove myself from it.

Anyway, I still should have replied to those tweets instead of quote-tweeting them, if only because of my follower count, because quote-tweeting can make people feel unsafe. I did not realize that but I should have, and I am sorry about that. 

Two more things: 

- It may be odd that I am writing in English, but I had decided to write in English from now on. It is less accessible for Dutch people, but it does allow me to reach a larger audience.
- The slug of this post is called `twitter-break` but I do not intend to come back.

## Another update:

- I still don't intend to come back as an actively Tweeting person, but I did create a new account at [@JaapStronks](https://twitter.com/jaapstronks), where I will post updates about my work.

---

I do need a way to still connect to the outside world, because I will still be doing projects. I you want to stay up to date, you may subscribe to [my Wings newsletter](http://eepurl.com/gtSa71).


Why I deactivated my Twitter account [updated]


When Dutch Prime M inister announced his plan to combat the coronavirus entailed letting it run through the population with the aim of building immunity through infection, I was shocked. I was shocked even more by the response from leftist Dutch opposittion parties who congratulated him on his statesmanlike speech.

It has been a crazy year. With some friends, I launched [testentestentesten.nl](https://www.testentestentesten.nl/) which quickly turned into [Containment Nu](https://www.containmentnu.nl/). But the leftist opposition parties mostly wouldn't listen. One exception: BIJ1, for which I had started working by building their campaign websites (things were a bit weird - at the time of the speech, the Dutch Greens were also still a client).

Anyway, it was [Sylvana Simons who finally said it out loud](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0UXo8yAaNA&t=1s): the government is intentionally allowing the virus to spread, with the apparent aim of building herd immunity.

[![Sylvana Simons in Parliament](https://screens.wings.dev/playersylvana-1-.jpg)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0UXo8yAaNA&t=1s)

I built [StopKuddeimmuniteit.nl](https://stopkuddeimmuniteit.nl/) that allows users to pick a Member of Parliament and send them an email or tweet, asking them to support a resolution put forward by the parties BIJ1 and VOLT to stop pursuing herd immunity or 'immunity through infection'.

---

I you want to stay up to date, you may subscribe to [my Wings newsletter](http://eepurl.com/gtSa71).


Finally, the Dutch government admits it is pursuing immunity through infections. Question is: does Dutch Parliament care?

New project: Stop Herdimmunity


For anyone who’s curious if NFT’s (‘non-fungible tokens’ that can be traded as a cryptocurrency on a blockchain) are really as revolutionary as they are made out to be (see here): here’s a Q & A.

Q: Will NFT’s revolutionize the dissemination, collection and trade of art and media in general?

A: Don’t think so.

Q: You don’t? But isn’t it insanely innovative, at the very least from a technical standpoint, that you can sell actual art on a blockchain, using a completely decentralized system that…

A: No.

Q: What do you mean, “no”? Do NFT’s let you trade art that is stored on a blockchain?

A: Not really.

Q: checks notes Ah, I see what you are getting at. When you buy or sell an NFT, you are not trading the work of art itself, but in most cases a token that contains a reference to it, because storing content on a blockchain is impractical, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Right, and even it were stored on the blockchain, it would still also exist outside of it, rendering the blockchain-stored file just a copy, right?

A: Correct.

Q: Let’s back up here. If you buy an NFT of a digital painting, you are not actually buying the work itself?

A: Indeed.
Q: But if the file itself is hosted somewhere and your NFT is basically a link to the file, an essential part of the NFT infrastructure is not based on blockchain technology at all?

A: Yup.

Q: But those marketplaces are legally obligated to keep hosting those files indefinitely, one might assume?

A: No.

Q: So… even though the NFT trading is decentralized, there is an NFT marketplace – a private party, paying for servers – that hosts those files. Whoa, that’s a pretty lopsided power distribution, considering that NFT traders invested millions into NFT’s and find out they are solely dependent on a private party to prevent their investments from becoming worthless.

A: Yup.

Q: But anyway, as an NFT owner, you simply bought the IP rights, got it.

A: No.

Q: Wait, not even the copyright? But does it allow you to edit or destroy the work of art, or to limit access to it?

A: No.

Q: But if there is a potentially infinite number of copies of a digital art work, you merely own a reference to a single copy… Doesn’t it give you the right to edit or delete the work? Jack Dorsey [sold his first tweet](https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/22/22344937/jack-dorsey-nft-sold-first-tweet-ethereum-cryptocurrency-twitter) for $ 2.9 million, but the owner of the associated NFT doesn’t have access to his Twitter password or command Dorsey to delete it, right?

A: Right.

Q: So, it’s just… bragging rights? You can say you ‘own’ something, which is true insofar as the rest of the world agrees with you?

A: Yes.

Q: So, what •actually\* is being traded, is not the expected value of the art, but the expected value of the NFT marketplace?

A: I guess.

Q: Wait, let’s see if there is anything that actually constitutes a meaningful form of scarcity which would justify even using the word ‘ownership’ in this context. Is there even anything preventing Dorsey from minting a second or third NFT with the same link to his first tweet, other than perhaps the Terms of Service of the NFT marketplace, ignoring the matter of enforceability?

A: No.

Q: So, NFT’s allow you to trade ‘ownership’ of art, even though the conceptualization of ‘ownership’ does not constitute anything we would normally associate with it, like any type of scarcity, or being able to control other people’s access to it, which shouldn’t be considered a laudable endeavour to begin with? Wait, which problem are we trying to solve here, again?

A: You tell me.

Q: So, it is an investment scheme based on belief and social convention alone? That’s the definition of a Ponzi scheme. What kind of late-stage-capitalist hellscape is this?

A: Well, sir, this is a McDonald’s. Can I take your order now?

## Post-scriptum

To be honest, I totally get why artists would be interested in minting NFT’s and selling their work. If someone wants to pay them hard cash for the right to call themselves ‘owner’ of the artwork without it having any consequences, it would be hard to argue against it. But if this is just a hype, it is worth considering the consequences:

- existing NFT marketplace owners have a lot to gain by making NFTs a thing, and existing investors have a lot to lose, which explains why they are starting to relentlessly promote NFT’s to artists and museums, because ‘you can earn free money’ is a pretty solid pitch;
- they will use the influx of art works being auctioned by high-profile artists and museums on NFT marketplaces as justification for the popularization of NFTs, which they will use to lure in new investors. If artists and museums are all-in, it must be super legit!
  I’m betting they will use the following hype to re-sell existing NFT’s with crazy profit margins to new investors;
- If NFTs prove to be a fad and the marketplaces & early investors are off to the next hype, artists and museums are left holding the bag, as they will have profited from aiding & abetting a scam operation

In the meantime, all the actual minting / transferring of NFTs wil have mostly been executed using blockchains with a proof-of-work mechanism like Etherium that requires ridiculously large amounts of energy. Bitcoin and Ethereum globally already have an equal energy footprint as the entire country of Argentina. Crypto in itself may already be enough to push us over a 3 degree temperature increase, and will render every measure taken against climate change pointless.
In this view, I think there is a fair chance NFTs are a short-term cash grab scheme that will make artists and museums a quick buck, while undermaining the reputation of the art industry as a whole, while actively contributing to the biggest threat humanity has ever faced.

---

I you want to stay up to date, you may subscribe to [my Wings newsletter](http://eepurl.com/gtSa71).

_Image by id-iom, original [here](https://www.flickr.com/photos/id-iom/51027956703/), [cc-licensed](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/)_


TL;DR: hell no – NFTs are a scam with no redeemable qualities.

Blog Posts

New project: Republiek

Why I deactivated my Twitter account [updated]

New project: Stop Herdimmunity

Are NFTs really shaking up the art world?