Michael Schellenberger

Rank 39 of 47
|
Score -98
9/27/2025, 2:05:02 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
108d
@sundarpichai @Google @Keir_Starmer Oracle's Larry Ellison is funding Tony Blair Institute. Oracle is in the business of digital IDs. This is bad.

"Ellison invested $130 million in the TBI between 2021 and 2023, with a further $218 million pledged since then. The scale of funding took the TBI from a headcount of
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
108d
@sundarpichai @Google @Keir_Starmer Well, this is all very good news for digital ID opponents. The public already hates the words "digital ID." More people oppose it than support it. And the more the public hears about it the less they will like about it. This could help bring down @Keir_Starmer government.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
108d
@sundarpichai @Google @Keir_Starmer Fourth question: "Advocates of a Digital ID argue it would enable you to prove your identity, store key facts about yourself in a way that is convenient and secure, and help you more easily access a broad range of public and private digital services."

Good lord. It was basically
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-…

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing digital IDs, a topic of public interest, and questioning the motivations behind political figures' support for them. The tone is skeptical and somewhat humorous, suggesting disbelief in the stated intentions of efficiency. It indirectly critiques the influence of funding on policy decisions.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly harm but uses sarcasm to question motives, which could be seen as undermining trust. [-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 but could be seen as dismissive of the dignity of those involved by implying ulterior motives. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, focusing instead on skepticism and humor. [-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 criticism but does not offer constructive dialogue or solutions, focusing on disbelief and sarcasm. [-1]