Michael Schellenberger

Rank 39 of 47
|
Score -98
9/27/2025, 2:08:16 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
路
108d
@sundarpichai @Google @Keir_Starmer I interviewed a British researcher about digital IDs and the person literally told me he thought that Tony Blair was genuinely just interested in making government more efficient 馃槀
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
路
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
路
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
路
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
路
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
路
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

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the implications of digital IDs and the involvement of influential figures and organizations in shaping related policies. It expresses skepticism and concern about the motivations behind these initiatives.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses a dismissive tone ('truly bonkers') which may not promote constructive dialogue, potentially violating the principle of doing no harm with words.聽[-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying or hate speech, but the dismissive tone could be seen as lacking respect for the privacy and dignity of those involved.聽[-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, as it focuses on criticism without offering constructive alternatives.聽[-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.
    The statement does not engage in personal attacks but uses a dismissive tone, which may hinder constructive criticism and dialogue.聽[-1]