Michael Schellenberger

Rank 43 of 47
|
Score -89
11/18/2025, 9:38:10 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
34d
The head of the foreign government - Stanford effort to censor social media needs to testify before Congress, says Chairman of Judiciary Committee @Jim_Jordan. Julie Inman Grant, a US citizen, is the head of the Orwellian "Global Online Safety Regulators Network"
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
55d
In 2022, Obama gave a speech at Stanford Cyber Policy Center advocating sweeping censorship of the Internet. Now, Public has discovered the same Center last month hosted a secret meeting with EU, UK, Brazil, & Australia officials to plot global censorship — including of the US.

The statement addresses concerns about the extraterritorial application of Australia's Online Safety Act and its potential impact on American free speech. It critiques the global reach of content takedown orders and suggests that such actions could set a precedent for other governments, potentially threatening free speech rights outside of Australia's jurisdiction.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement raises concerns about potential harm to free speech, aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm with words and actions. [+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 and dignity by focusing on policy critique rather than personal attacks, adhering to the principle of respecting privacy and dignity. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by highlighting the implications of global content takedown orders, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding and empathy. [+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 engages in constructive criticism of the policy without resorting to personal attacks, adhering to the principle of engaging in constructive criticism. [+1]