Michael Schellenberger

Rank 39 of 47
|
Score -98
9/27/2025, 1:56:11 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
108d
@sundarpichai @Google @Keir_Starmer Third question: " Do you think there is digital technology that could help tackle these issues... Processing asylum seekers and managing the UK's borders"

They knew migration was the key since it scrambles Left and Right. So clever!
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
108d
@sundarpichai @Google @Keir_Starmer Second question: "Some are suggesting the government should introduce a new app, allowing instant access to a range of public services."

A new app!!! Wow. So they already knew the words "digital ID" were contaminated. Amazing
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
108d
@sundarpichai @Google @Keir_Starmer Tony Blair Institute did a survey supposedly finding high support for digital IDs. How? By priming people to think about how inconvenienced they've felt without a digital ID. This is the first question. Totally manipulative and grosss

https://yonderconsulting.com/wp-…
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
108d
@sundarpichai @Google @Keir_Starmer Who is pulling the strings of Tony Blair and WEF?
James Melville 🚜
@JamesMelville
·
108d
Here’s the WEF vision of Digital ID. It’s just a conspiracy theory right? Nothing to see here whatsoever.
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.

The statement critiques the advocacy for Digital IDs, suggesting skepticism about their convenience and security. It implies a distrust of the motives behind promoting Digital IDs, possibly viewing them as manipulative or intrusive.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly harm but implies skepticism about Digital IDs, which could be seen as protective of public interest.
  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 questioning the security of Digital IDs, aligning with concerns about personal data protection. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by highlighting potential issues with Digital IDs, though it could be more balanced.
  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.
    The tone is critical and somewhat sarcastic, which may not foster constructive dialogue. [-1]