Michael Schellenberger

Rank 39 of 47
|
Score -98
9/27/2025, 1:38:26 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
108d
@sundarpichai @Google UK opposition vs support of digital IDs is 45 to 42.

Opponents should be able to drive that opposition number up significantly.

It is absolutely essential that the UK kill two-tier @Keir_Starmer plan for digital IDs before they metastasize across the West.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
108d
Stop your creepy totalitarianism @sundarpichai @Google
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
108d
And after the government combines your personal, banking, and voting data under a single digital ID, it will add social media and vaccine information. Same with Real ID in the US. The Censorship Industrial Complex was dress rehearsal for digital ID.
Silkie Carlo
@silkiecarlo
·
109d
It only took until 4pm for the Govt to say "in time" the mandatory biometric digital ID will be used for renting, benefits, banking, age ID, nurseries, education, even voting....

These uses will not (initially?) be mandatory but likely will be made so after future moral panics

The statement is part of a public discourse on the introduction of digital ID cards in the UK. It encourages citizens to sign a petition against the proposal, reflecting opposition to potential privacy and civil liberty concerns.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to prevent potential harm by opposing digital ID cards, which some believe could infringe on privacy rights. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It respects privacy by advocating against digital IDs, which are perceived as invasive. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding and empathy by encouraging public participation in a democratic process. [+1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    It engages in constructive criticism by opposing a government policy without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]