Michael Schellenberger

Rank 39 of 47
|
Score -98
James Melville 🚜
@JamesMelville
·
109d
Here’s the WEF vision of Digital ID. It’s just a conspiracy theory right? Nothing to see here whatsoever.
9/27/2025, 1:42:11 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
108d
@sundarpichai @Google @Keir_Starmer If you are UK citizen please sign the petition. They are closing to getting 2 million signatures 🔥🔥🔥

https://petition.parliament.uk/p…
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 questions the influence behind Tony Blair and the WEF, implying a conspiracy or hidden control. It is a response to a conversation about digital ID cards in the UK, which is a public issue. The tone is skeptical and possibly accusatory, suggesting distrust in political and global organizations.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement implies a conspiracy without evidence, which could contribute to misinformation and public distrust, potentially causing harm. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It does not respect the privacy and dignity of the individuals and organizations mentioned, as it suggests hidden manipulation without proof. [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it raises suspicion without constructive dialogue. [-2]
  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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it uses a rhetorical question to imply wrongdoing without evidence. [-2]