From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

Apart from tracking every interaction, another major part of this digital ID scheme for the metaverse includes an agenda for complete traceability of all transactions. They call this empowerment.

Under the banner of establishing global governance in the metaverse, the World Economic Forum (WEF) is pushing digital ID for all users, so all blended reality interactions and transactions can be tracked-and-traced.

Published on November 19, the WEF report, “Shared Commitments in a Blended Reality: Advancing Governance in the Future Internet” expresses the desire to establish global governance in blended reality, which requires digital identity for all users to keep track of their interactions and transactions:

Digital spaces have long been a forum for pronounced cyberbullying, harassment, abuse, exploitation, privacy violation, etc. Physical-digital blended spaces will see exacerbated forms of these issues.

When it comes to future interactions in the metaverse, the report asserts that some people will behave badly and that some people won’t know how to deal with what they experience, and for those reasons, digital ID should be a prerequisite under a global governance framework to ensure user safety.

According to the report, “In blended reality, people cannot ‘unsee’ or ‘un-experience’ interactions. While people cannot unsee or un-experience reality today, the types of spatial experiences an individual could be exposed to bring dynamic, evolving, palpable and visceral experiences. This underscores the urgency of refining and implementing a set of guiding commitments.”

The unelected globalist desire for global governance over the future of the internet is exemplified by what they call “fragmentation” when it comes to how each nation chooses to govern, whether it be a mandate from the people or from authoritarian regimes:

Hardware devices – such as smartphones, biometric and IoT sensors, and XR headsets – play a pivotal role in this transformation by reshaping how individuals interact with the internet and each other. These technologies are blurring the line between online and offline lives, creating new challenges and opportunities that require a coordinated and informed approach from stakeholders for effective navigation and governance.

One example of fragmentation has to do with how different regions regulate data collection and privacy, with a particular focus on the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) scheme.

Using GDPR as a starting point, the WEF report says, “Fragmentation of national frameworks can hinder the efficiency and effectiveness of global internet governance and the ability to address transnational issues such as cybercrime, digital trade, online harms, secure and trusted cross-border data flows, and the protection of intellectual property.”

In order to address this so-called challenge, the unelected globalist solution states that “it is imperative to establish a common set of governance commitments that all stakeholders can execute via tailored strategies, approaches and policies that are aligned with jurisdictional values and establish common objectives for cooperation.”

All roads lead to digital ID; this is also true for financial transactions in both the physical and digital worlds, including where they overlap.

The WEF report recommends eight commitments that “stakeholders” should apply to global governance in the metaverse – stakeholders being governments, academics, and civil society – the latter of which consists of NGOs like the WEF itself.

These commitments don’t come from the will of the people; they come from unelected technocrats looking to influence policies from the top-down:

Rallying behind these governance commitments will enable technically and jurisdictionally appropriate governance guardrails to be put in place as individuals start to engage in blended reality experiences and move around immersive spaces – bringing with them their identity, money and digital objects.

Source: WEF “Shared Commitments in a Blended Reality: Advancing Governance in the Future Internet“

It is crucial to explore considerations around addressing the provenance, authenticity and protection of physical and digital assets. This includes data, identity and intellectual property (IP), and other forms of assets to ensure possession, access, transactions, transferability and accountability for individuals, entities and common resources.

Central to global governance in the metaverse, once again, is digital ID, which is also referred to as “identification management” in the WEF report.

According to the report, identification management “involves enabling appropriate and suitable identity access management measures of individuals interacting with information technology (IT) systems to enable governance through such systems. This might include, as necessary, aspects of personal identity, digital identity, entities or digital assets and their associated ownership.”

The authors claim that digital identity is necessary for:

Employing traceability and visibility mechanisms to implement appropriate enforcement, redress and remediation.

In this way, digital ID is being pushed forth as a something that will protect individuals, rather than addressing all the ways it can enslave them.

Apart from tracking every interaction, another major part of this digital ID scheme for the metaverse includes an agenda for complete traceability of all transactions.

They call this empowerment.

Empowerment through traceability and control: This involves enabling the attribution of lineage and authenticity of digital and physical interactions and assets.

Keeping in mind that total traceability and control is not just for the digital realm, but also the real world and where the two intersect, the WEF report says that “tracing the ownership and transfer history of assets through mechanisms like distributed ledger technology or digital certificates” will create a chain of custody.

This chain of custody includes:

• Authenticity: establishing proof of personhood and humanity, especially in the context of AI-generated assets and digital representations
• Proof of value: establishing verifiable and quantifiable value for both physical and digital asset
• Proof of ownership: clear assignment and verification of ownership
• Proof of transaction: comprehensive records for transaction history and settlement

In other words, there is to be no distinction between the physical world and the digital one when it comes to buying and selling.

Every transaction, every change of ownership, everything of value must be digitally tracked and traced and tied back to a person’s digital ID.

Another way in which digital ID is essential to the unelected globalist agenda is to deal with what they call misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech, which is lumped in a category for the metaverse called “experience moderation.”

Experience Moderation – Content and conduct moderation: Prioritizing thoughtful content and conduct moderation that respects human expression while addressing the challenges of harmful content, harassment, misinformation and disinformation, and other harms while ensuring user safety and championing algorithmic accuracy and transparency

But what type of content do these unelected technocrats consider to be harmful?

For starters, if you question any official narrative having to do with climate change, you are spreading hateful and harmful misinformation and disinformation.

If you don’t agree with public health mandates, you are expressing views that harm user safety.

And with a digital ID, if you don’t comply, you can be shut off from goods and services, like we saw with vaccine passports.

Then, in a strange turn of events, the report also mentions the right of the people to not participate in this digital scheme.

The authors call this “Preservation of Choice”:

Preservation of choice: This involves endorsing the development of governance that respects digital autonomy, emphasizing that everyone has the fundamental option to limit or abstain from digital engagement without facing exclusion from essential services such as healthcare, education, utilities, means of communication, emergency response, transport, etc.

But how can an individual have “preservation of choice” when digital ID is required for all interactions – be they online, offline, or in between?

The authors say, “Championing the dignity of choice for nondigital interactions and ensuring that this choice does not preclude access to essential services – this may be accomplished through modernizing infrastructure for processes that enable members of society to reap the benefits of emerging technologies without necessarily needing to interact with them.”

They also add, “Recognizing and affirming the rights to autonomy, agency, mobility and access to information as fundamental human rights in both digital and physical spaces. This includes the right to move and choice of residence, and the ability to seek and impart information through any media, regardless of frontiers (Article 13 and Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights).”

However, all this talk about being able to opt-out of the digital gulag system, along with having the right to move about and having the right to access information, is completely contradicted by everything the WEF and other unelected globalist entities have been pushing for over the years when it comes to digital ID:

This digital identity determines what products, services and information we can access – or, conversely, what is closed off to us.

Digital identity is the nexus to an interoperable metaverse. It enables accountability and the capacity to traverse worlds with minimal friction.

Apart from acknowledging that digital ID is exclusionary in nature, the WEF flat-out admits that vaccines passports are a form of digital ID.

According to the WEF report, “Advancing Digital Agency: The Power of Data Intermediaries,” published in February, 2022, “The COVID 19 pandemic has led to a heightened focus on the power of medical data, specifically so-called vaccine passports.

“These [vaccine] passports by nature serve as a form of digital identity.”

Getting back to the metaverse, the WEF has stated time and time again that digital ID will be central to your daily life and that digital ID will be the “nexus to an interoperable metaverse.”

“A person’s metaverse identity will be central to their day-to-day life.”

If your metaverse identity is supposed to be central to your daily life, and if digital ID is supposed to be the nexus to an interoperable metaverse, how in the hell can they claim there is still a “preservation of choice” for those wishing to opt out?

In a weak attempt to give some consolation to the paradox they invented, the unelected globalists at the WEF are saying in the latest report that there should be a system in place that allows for the deletion and erasure of an individual’s private data after having gone through a process of review, updates, and transfers.

The report describes this with the acronym RUTDE:

Review, update, transfer, deletion and erasure (RUTDE): Enabling comprehensive architecture, processes and privacy controls facilitates:

• Building IT systems to support the review, update, transfer, deletion and erasure of individuals’ information
• Providing documentation, structured processes and supporting information for individuals to manage their digital footprints, including the option to request, review, update, transfer and delete personal data from platforms

But wait a second! Why should we have to manage our “digital footprints” if we have already chosen to opt-out in the first place?

Why would we need to request, review, update, transfer, or delete our personal data if we never consented at the outset?

The whole thing reeks of public-private partnership overreach.

They say we can opt-out of the metaverse digital ID data collection scam while simultaneously telling us that doing so would be close to impossible.

It’s the same type of logic that said nobody forced you to take the experimental gene therapy jab, but if you didn’t, you could lose your job, your freedoms, your livelihood – all of which runs contrary to all previous human rights agreements.

When it comes to digital ID, there is no public consensus, only collusion.

There is no choice; only coercion and contradiction to confuse our cognition towards total control.

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

 By Christina Maas

Critics on both sides of Parliament flagged concerns about the speed with which this legislation moved forward. But the Albanese government pressed ahead, arguing that urgent action was needed to protect young people. Their opponents in the Liberal-National coalition, not wanting to appear soft on tech regulation, fell in line. The result? A law that feels more like a political statement than a well-thought-out policy. There’s no denying the appeal of bold action on Big Tech. Headlines about online predators and harmful content make it easy to rally public support. But there’s a fine line between decisive governance and reactionary policymaking. Big Questions, Few Answers The most glaring issue is privacy. Forcing users to hand over ID to access social media opens up a Pandora’s box of security concerns. Centralizing sensitive personal data creates a tempting target for hackers, and Australia’s track record with large-scale data breaches isn’t exactly reassuring. There’s also the question of what happens when kids inevitably find workarounds. Locking them out of mainstream platforms doesn’t mean they’ll stop using the internet—it just pushes them into less regulated, potentially more harmful digital spaces. Is that really a win for online safety? A Global Watch Party Australia’s bold move is already drawing attention from abroad. Governments worldwide are grappling with how to regulate social media, and this legislation could set a precedent. But whether it becomes a model for others or a cautionary tale remains to be seen. For now, the Albanese government has delivered a strong message: protecting children online is a priority. But the lack of clear answers about enforcement and privacy leaves the impression that this is a solution in search of a strategy. All on the Platforms Under the new social media law, the responsibility for enforcement doesn’t rest with the government, but with the very companies it targets. Platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram will be tasked with ensuring no Australian under 16 manages to slip through the digital gates. If they fail? They’ll face fines of up to A$50 million (about $32.4 million USD). That’s a steep price for failing to solve a problem the government itself hasn’t figured out how to address. The legislation offers little in the way of specifics, leaving tech giants to essentially guess how they’re supposed to pull off this feat. The law vaguely mentions taking “reasonable steps” to verify age but skips the critical part: defining what “reasonable” means. The Industry Pushback Tech companies, predictably, are not thrilled. Meta, in its submission to a Senate inquiry, called the law “rushed” and out of touch with the current limitations of age-verification technology. “The social media ban overlooks the practical reality of age assurance technology,” Meta argued. Translation? The tools to make this work either don’t exist or aren’t reliable enough to enforce at scale. X didn’t hold back either. The platform warned of potential misuse of the sweeping powers the legislation grants to the minister for communications. X CEO Linda Yaccarino’s team even raised concerns that these powers could be used to curb free speech — another way of saying that regulating who gets to log on could quickly evolve into regulating what they’re allowed to say. And it’s not just the tech companies pushing back. The Human Rights Law Centre questioned the lawfulness of the bill, highlighting how it opens the door to intrusive data collection while offering no safeguards against abuse. Promises, Assurances, and Ambiguities The government insists it won’t force people to hand over passports, licenses, or tap into the contentious new digital ID system to prove their age. But here’s the catch: there’s nothing in the current law explicitly preventing that, either. The government is effectively asking Australians to trust that these measures won’t lead to broader surveillance—even as the legislation creates the infrastructure to make it possible. This uncertainty was laid bare during the bill’s rushed four-hour review. Liberal National Senator Matt Canavan pressed for clarity, and while the Coalition managed to extract a promise for amendments preventing platforms from demanding IDs outright, it still feels like a band-aid on an otherwise sprawling mess. A Law in Search of a Strategy Part of the problem is that the government itself doesn’t seem entirely sure how this law will work. A trial of age-assurance technology is planned for mid-2025—long after the law is expected to take effect. The communications minister, Michelle Rowland, will ultimately decide what enforcement methods apply to which platforms, wielding what critics describe as “expansive” and potentially unchecked authority. It’s a power dynamic that brings to mind a comment from Rowland’s predecessor, Stephen Conroy, who once bragged about his ability to make telecommunications companies “wear red underpants on [their] head” if he so desired. Tech companies now face the unenviable task of interpreting a vague law while bracing for whatever decisions the minister might make in the future. The list of platforms affected by the law is another moving target. Government officials have dropped hints in interviews—YouTube, for example, might not make the cut—but these decisions will ultimately be left to the minister. This pick-and-choose approach adds another layer of uncertainty, leaving tech companies and users alike guessing at what’s coming next. The Bigger Picture The debate around this legislation is as much about philosophy as it is about enforcement. On one hand, the government is trying to address legitimate concerns about children’s safety online. On the other, it’s doing so in a way that raises serious questions about privacy, free speech, and the limits of state power over the digital realm. Australia’s experiment could become a model for other countries grappling with the same challenges—or a cautionary tale of what happens when governments legislate without a clear plan. For now, the only certainty is uncertainty. In a year’s time, Australians might find themselves proving their age every time they try to log in—or watching the system collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.