Censorship Industrial Complex
World Economic Forum pushes digital ID for global metaverse governance: report
From LifeSiteNews
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.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Is free speech over in the UK? Government censorship reaches frightening new levels
From LifeSiteNews
By Frank Wright
Instead of changing policies which threaten the collapse of Western civilization, the liberal-global governments prefer to make public opposition to their politics a crime.
The UK’s crackdown on free speech continues, with two online platforms withdrawing over censorship concerns – whilst liberal-critical speakers are banned from entering Britain, and even arrested on arrival.
Following the introduction of laws which could see online platforms fined millions of pounds, free speech social media company Gab and video sharing platform Bitchute have withdrawn their services from UK users.
As Reclaim the Net, a UK-based online freedom campaign group, said on March 28:
“The British government has begun aggressively extending its censorship regime beyond its borders, invoking the sweeping powers granted by the Online Safety Act 2023 to demand compliance from foreign-based platforms.”
Bitchute withdrew its services from UK users “over online censorship laws,” as the Free Speech Union reported on April 10. Gab’s statement, published on its UK domain, said the company was acting to protect British users from being jailed for posting on its platform:
After receiving yet another demand from the UK’s speech police, Ofcom, Gab has made the decision to block the entire United Kingdom from accessing our website.
This latest email from Ofcom ordered us to disclose information about our users and operations. We know where this leads: compelled censorship and British citizens thrown in jail for ‘hate speech.’ We refuse to comply with this tyranny.
The UK government claims its laws support “online safety” – but as Reclaim the Net explains, “critics argue … the term … is being used as a smokescreen for state-sanctioned thought control.”
The future of information in Britain looks bleak, as one UK commentator said, promising a “TV version” of the internet – sterilized by UK government media watchdog Ofcom:
“Unless the White House really forces Britain to do it, Ofcom will not be abolished, because the mainstream parties approve of it and no party that doesn’t will be allowed anywhere near power.”
Millennial Woes concludes that there is likely a “hit list” of further online platforms to be taken down in order, beginning with video outlets Odysee and Rumble, the messenger service Telegram, then the free speech publisher Substack – and on to Elon Musk’s X.
Woes warns:
“If allowed to continue in its current mode, Ofcom will take down the platforms it wants to, then tame the others by hook or by crook. The Internet in Britain will be a homogenised, redacted farce – a pathetic ‘TV version’ of what people in more civilised countries have.”
Cambridge professor arrested
The charge of “state-sanctioned thought control” is reinforced by the arrest – on Good Friday –-of a Palestinian Christian and Cambridge University professor at London’s Heathrow Airport. The reason for Professor Makram Khoury-Machool’s detention was that he has spoken out against Israel’s war in Gaza, as reports from the UK said.
“Keir Starmer’s long and intensifying war on pro-Palestine, anti-genocide speech through the misuse of the Terrorism Act … has continued to escalate,” noted UK outlet Skwawkbox, which covers stories such as this – neglected by the mainstream press “because it doesn’t fit their agenda.”
Professor Khoury, whose speech was criminalized under anti-terror laws, had in the past co-founded an anti-extremism institute in 2016 at Cambridge University.
British left-populist George Galloway responded on X (formerly Twitter), saying the arrest of this “gentle, devout moderate academic father” suggests that the “government has declared war on its own citizens, that liberty is dead in this land, and that Britain is no longer a safe country.”
Galloway’s warning of “It can happen to you. And it will” came a day after reports that a French philosopher noted for his outspoken criticism of mass migration had been banned from entering the UK.
French anti-migration speaker banned
Renaud Camus is the author of The Great Replacement – coining a term now used to describe the liberal-global policy of the replacement of Western populations via mass immigration.
The “great replacement” is routinely “debunked” by the ruling elite as a “conspiracy theory.” As Camus once said to Britain’s Matt Goodwin, “How can it be debunked when it is evident in every street?”
He was due to speak at a “remigration conference” in England on April 26. Organized by the nationalist Homeland Party, it is dedicated to the discussion of policies similar to those now being enacted by the Trump administration.
According to the Daily Telegraph, Camus was denied entry to the UK by government order.
In an email seen by The Telegraph, the Home Office informed Mr Camus that he had been denied the electronic travel authorisation (ETA) needed to enter Britain.
‘Your presence in the UK is not considered to be conducive to the public good,’ the email read.
The Telegraph reports that Mr Camus, “who is gay and has advocated for non-violence,” supplied one convincing explanation for his treatment:
[He] told The Telegraph that ‘of all the European governments guilty’ of allowing unchecked migration, ‘the British government is one of the guiltiest’.
‘No wonder it does not want me to speak,’ Mr Camus added.
The fact the British government is banning speakers who promote policies now being enacted with widespread support in the United States has not only provoked criticism – it may derail UK/U.S. trade negotiations.
Days ago, Vice President JD Vance warned UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer that Britain will get no deal with the U.S. over tariffs if its “hate speech” laws remain in place.
“Sir Keir Starmer must embrace Donald Trump’s agenda by repealing hate speech laws in order to get a trade deal over the line, a Washington source has told The Independent.”
A “Washington source” told the UK-based Independent, “No free speech, no deal. It is as simple as that.”
Vance has been a stern critic of British and European moves towards increasing censorship and the suppression of freedom of opinion, describing it in his February Munich speech as a “threat” to democracy “from within” Western Europe – and one which is led by its liberal-globalist governments.
Vance is reportedly “obsessed by the fall of Western civilisation,” The Independent’s Washington source explained. It is clear that Vance believes that this fall is very much a threat created by the political decisions of governments like Starmer’s.
The use of “hate speech” and “anti-terrorism” laws in these cases shows how the UK state-sanctioned suppression of speech affects anyone – from the left, right, or from the Christian faith – who criticizes the policies of the government.
These are not fringe extremist views, but those held by increasing numbers of ordinary people in Britain and throughout the Western world. Instead of changing policies which threaten the collapse of Western civilization, the liberal-global governments prefer to make public opposition to their politics a crime.
In the case of the British state, its hardline stance to defend its idea of democracy from free speech is now threatening its economic future. The politics and laws celebrated as the guarantee of safety increasingly resemble a form of extremism which will not tolerate debate.
From LifeSiteNews
Schwab’s World Economic Forum became a globalist hub for population control, radical climate agenda, and transhuman ideology under his decades-long leadership.
Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum and the face of the NGO’s elitist annual get-together in Davos, Switzerland, has resigned as chair of WEF.
Over the decades, but especially over the past several years, the WEF’s Davos annual symposium has become a lightning rod for conservative criticism due to the agendas being pushed there by the elites. As the Associated Press noted:
Widely regarded as a cheerleader for globalization, the WEF’s Davos gathering has in recent years drawn criticism from opponents on both left and right as an elitist talking shop detached from lives of ordinary people.
While WEF itself had no formal power, the annual Davos meeting brought together many of the world’s wealthiest and most influential figures, contributing to Schwab’s personal worth and influence.
Schwab’s resignation on April 20 was announced by the Geneva-based WEF on April 21, but did not indicate why the 88-year-old was resigning. “Following my recent announcement, and as I enter my 88th year, I have decided to step down from the position of Chair and as a member of the Board of Trustees, with immediate effect,” Schwab said in a brief statement. He gave no indication of what he plans to do next.
Schwab founded the World Economic Forum – originally the European Management Forum – in 1971, and its initial mission was to assist European business leaders in competing with American business and to learn from U.S. models and innovation. However, the mission soon expanded to the development of a global economic agenda.
Schwab detailed his own agenda in several books, including The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016), in which he described the rise of a new industrial era in which technologies such artificial intelligence, gene editing, and advanced robotics would blur the lines between the digital, physical, and biological worlds. Schwab wrote:
We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before. We do not yet know just how it will unfold, but one thing is clear: the response to it must be integrated and comprehensive, involving all stakeholders of the global polity, from the public and private sectors to academia and civil society …
The Fourth Industrial Revolution, finally, will change not only what we do but also who we are. It will affect our identity and all the issues associated with it: our sense of privacy, our notions of ownership, our consumption patterns, the time we devote to work and leisure, and how we develop our careers, cultivate our skills, meet people, and nurture relationships. It is already changing our health and leading to a “quantified” self, and sooner than we think it may lead to human augmentation.
How? Microchips implanted into humans, for one. Schwab was a tech optimist who appeared to heartily welcome transhumanism; in a 2016 interview with France 24 discussing his book, he stated:
And then you have the microchip, which will be implanted, probably within the next ten years, first to open your car, your home, or to do your passport, your payments, and then it will be in your body to monitor your health.
In 2020, mere months into the pandemic, Schwab published COVID-19: The Great Reset, in which he detailed his view of the opportunity presented by the growing global crisis. According to Schwab, the crisis was an opportunity for a global reset that included “stakeholder capitalism,” in which corporations could integrate social and environmental goals into their operations, especially working toward “net-zero emissions” and a massive transition to green energy, and “harnessing” the Fourth Industrial Revolution, including artificial intelligence and automation.
Much of Schwab’s personal wealth came from running the World Economic Forum; as chairman, he earned an annual salary of 1 million Swiss francs (approximately $1 million USD), and the WEF was supported financially through membership fees from over 1,000 companies worldwide as well as significant contributions from organizations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Vice Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe is now serving as interim chairman until his replacement has been selected.
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
How Canada’s Mainstream Media Lost the Public Trust
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
Indigenous-led Projects Hold Key To Canada’s Energy Future
-
Business2 days agoIs Government Inflation Reporting Accurate?
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoCarney’s Hidden Climate Finance Agenda
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoWhen it comes to pipelines, Carney’s words flow both ways
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoStudy links B.C.’s drug policies to more overdoses, but researchers urge caution
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoPolls say Canadians will give Trump what he wants, a Carney victory.
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoCarney Liberals pledge to follow ‘gender-based goals analysis’ in all government policy
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoPoilievre’s Conservatives promise to repeal policy allowing male criminals in female jails
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoTrump Has Driven Canadians Crazy. This Is How Crazy.