by Didi Rankovic, Reclaim The Net:
Despite the serious controversies arising from Big Tech/government “coordination” (lawsuits in the US say, it’s actually “collusion”), this concept seems to be taken as normal behavior in the UK.
Currently, Home Secretary James Cleverly (whose department is in charge of the police) is in Silicon Valley for talks with representatives of Google, Meta, and Apple. And in New York City, he will be meeting those from X.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Reports are saying that the purpose of Cleverly’s US trip is to “discuss how the UK government and tech players can work together to tackle a number of challenges facing democracies in the digital age.”
The rush to normalize such behavior has to do with the UK’s general election later in 2024.
This does give credence to those who believe Big Tech’s de facto status in the world can be described as being that of a semi-governmental player, that various governments talk to and collaborate with – as they would with each other.
What those governments are asking from Big Tech is to control messages and narratives via censorship and bans. The way they present it is as something quite opposite – “safeguarding” societies from things like misinformation, etc., and, “malign influence.”
But one could say that there’s plenty of reasons to describe policies like the UN’s Global Digital Impact as a malign influence on any society, specifically on any democracy.
But it’s not beyond the realm of probability that Cleverly could be discussing this scheme, too.
After all, the UK has been very active in working with the UN on this, and the “newspeak” definition of Global Digital Impact is, ensuring digital technologies “are used responsibly for the public’s benefit.”
But few things scream, “public benefit” less than what the initiative in reality aims to achieve: summed up, it’s introduction of digital ID, linked to user bank accounts.
Both for democracy and free speech advocates, and repressively-acting governments, the 2022 trucker protest in Canada was an excellent showcase of how legitimate dissent can be stifled by cutting people off from their money.
