"W3C standards are now going to be utilized by nation states for digital credentials that are going to determine if individuals are eligible for work, are able to drive, are a citizen of a particular country, or are able to cross a border legally. The
implications to society are many and need to be considered in a manner that has more oversight than a graphics API or a markup language."
"This work is also imperative due to the European Digital Wallet initiatives, who plan to use some variation of W3C Verifiable Credentials"
A few years ago while on a motorcycle tour, dropped by friends in Paris. I recall telling them, your political slogan ought to be: "We want Roman slavery back"
The Roman slave master used to feed, clothe, train and arrange care when sick. After slave finishes his daily chores, goes home with no worries and drinks wine with his friends.
Today in Europe you have to work like a dog just to make sure you have what the slave master provided. And when you get home after a long commute, no friends, just TV and worries about any outstanding bills or debt lol lol.
Somewhere between slavery and democracy something went wrong, so your best bet is a new start from slavery lol lol
"We might want to consider embedding this "group of concerned parties" (whoever ends up working on the joint work item) into each group to ensure that there is a tighter coupling between feedback and spec text changes."
I guess the group of concerned parties doesn't include us slaves.
If I were at the following meeting I would have said the main question is where does the tech stop and people decide things for themselves. -YAT
"we haven’t quite yet reached the level where we understand enough to have a productive f2f meeting"
"if credibility meant anything, climate change would have been tackled decades ago"
"… some people equate credibility with truth… but we don’t associate those"
"… It’s very hard to conclude which credibility signals… can for sure determine truth… truth is a complicated term… let’s say credible or not"
"… W3C works on tech solution… we have implications on social change… everyone here probably agrees that tech is political… technical change is the only way we can have an effect"
"The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) addresses the prevalence of misleading information online through the development of technical standards for certifying the source and history (or provenance) of media content."
"JournalList is a non-profit association owned and operated by its members, primarily for the purpose of increasing the online visibility of the trust that online publishers have in each other when they form into associations or other types of groups."
"June 17, 2020
Added Microsoft, Digital Content Next and Snopes as reviewers."
"In one revealing section from USAID’s Disinformation Primer, the government agency identifies the top disinformation threat as not being “state actors driving the issue” but rather that “problematic information more regularly originates from networks of alternative sites and anonymous individuals who have created their own ‘alt media’ online spaces.” Meaning, USAID sees the key threat as ordinary individuals online forming independent opinions online, not foreign intelligence agencies performing complex influence operations.
USAID goes on to to say “These alternative spaces include message board and digital distribution platforms (e.g., Reddit, 4chan, or Discord)… and gaming sites.”
USAID bemoans that such gaming sites and message boards allow ordinary citizens to to form “interpretations of the world that differ from ‘mainstream’ sources. With this, individuals contribute their own ‘research’ to the larger discussion, collectively reviewing and validating each other to create a populist expertise that justifies, shapes and supporters their alternative views.”
"...the Global Engagement Center (GEC) carries out state propaganda through willing participants from private media organizations
....The GEC coordinates with a global cartel of Soros-, Gates-, Omidyar-, and Big Tech-funded “fact-checkers” through the Poynter Institute’s International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) to control the international media narrative."
"For many decades, governments have relied on the legacy media as their “gatekeepers of information and news.” But now that “anyone can create and disseminate information,” the state and its gatekeepers are struggling to compete. The fact that we, the people, can now communicate online and share ideas and information between ourselves has been identified as a global threat at the intergovernmental level."
What it boils down to imo is that they are proposing that people outsource their judgement to a machine. Why would that ever be a good idea? Who would be behind the machine?...certain people, thats who, so they're proposing everyone outsource their judgement to those certain people. This is nothing but automating, and thereby accelerating and maybe mandating, cult behavior.
"However all the opprobrium ... should also be applied to ... various news outlets who didn’t fact-check the content even as they posed as the bastions of the truth..."
They are deliberately trying to drum up support for "fact checking" imo.
There is an effort in the W3C, which is an arm of the regime, to establish the "credible web" where everything is "fact checked". This I regard as an effort to shut down citizen journalism in favor of outlets approved by the regime. By regime I mean the current world government, which is run by the Rothschild syndicate and their Rockefeller front.
The Markup Cult has been nurtured by the ruling class to keep control of the internet/www/social media for itself, but the Markup Cult itself could *one day* be pried from their hands and appropriated by We The People.
Workshop on ODRL and Beyond: Practical Applications and Challenges for Policy-Based Access and Usage Control
...
The workshop provides a venue for researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders to engage in scientific discourse"
Notice they don't include "people" in their description of who the venue is for, unless by "stakeholders" they mean any stakeholders pursuing the dracula of Technocracy.
Below you'll find a note from some of the top honchos at the W3C. They recently decided that the current state of the internet... well... it sucks. And they want to make it better in the ways that they can as the organization where the internet was pretty much invented.
But rather than create a new group, they realized that there's a group that's been trying to make the internet less sucky for a while now, the group you belong to, the CredWeb Community Group."
I think the "top honchos at the W3C" would do well to have some light shown on them.
"...new Ontologies will most likely be needed to express guarantees of an organization's freedom from conflicts of interest when dealing with an individual, and Verifiable Credentials about an organization's conflicts of interest or lack thereof will need to be verified by individuals. This will be the reverse of the usual flow of verification, which is that an organization is usually verifying claims from an individual and not the other way around, and so it may also require procedures or protocols not yet developed."
I guess "public-interest non-profit organization" are the absolute worst
At
https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues
"Authentic Web" workshop?
Also:
"W3C standards are now going to be utilized by nation states for digital credentials that are going to determine if individuals are eligible for work, are able to drive, are a citizen of a particular country, or are able to cross a border legally. The
implications to society are many and need to be considered in a manner that has more oversight than a graphics API or a markup language."
--from https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/458#issuecomment-2110368322
Damn! this too:
"This work is also imperative due to the European Digital Wallet initiatives, who plan to use some variation of W3C Verifiable Credentials"
A few years ago while on a motorcycle tour, dropped by friends in Paris. I recall telling them, your political slogan ought to be: "We want Roman slavery back"
The Roman slave master used to feed, clothe, train and arrange care when sick. After slave finishes his daily chores, goes home with no worries and drinks wine with his friends.
Today in Europe you have to work like a dog just to make sure you have what the slave master provided. And when you get home after a long commute, no friends, just TV and worries about any outstanding bills or debt lol lol.
Somewhere between slavery and democracy something went wrong, so your best bet is a new start from slavery lol lol
"We might want to consider embedding this "group of concerned parties" (whoever ends up working on the joint work item) into each group to ensure that there is a tighter coupling between feedback and spec text changes."
I guess the group of concerned parties doesn't include us slaves.
Not necessarily... they probably are slaves... house slaves though not field slaves ;-)
If I were at the following meeting I would have said the main question is where does the tech stop and people decide things for themselves. -YAT
"we haven’t quite yet reached the level where we understand enough to have a productive f2f meeting"
"if credibility meant anything, climate change would have been tackled decades ago"
"… some people equate credibility with truth… but we don’t associate those"
"… It’s very hard to conclude which credibility signals… can for sure determine truth… truth is a complicated term… let’s say credible or not"
"… W3C works on tech solution… we have implications on social change… everyone here probably agrees that tech is political… technical change is the only way we can have an effect"
-from https://github.com/w3c/authentic-web-workshop/blob/main/minutes/2025-03-12AuthWeb.md
see also
"The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) addresses the prevalence of misleading information online through the development of technical standards for certifying the source and history (or provenance) of media content."
https://c2pa.org/
Originator Profiles
https://originator-profile.org/en-US/
trust.txt
https://journallist.net/reference-document-for-trust-txt-specifications
"JournalList is a non-profit association owned and operated by its members, primarily for the purpose of increasing the online visibility of the trust that online publishers have in each other when they form into associations or other types of groups."
"June 17, 2020
Added Microsoft, Digital Content Next and Snopes as reviewers."
Chromium Reputation Provider Framework (draft)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTFafdHa-o3OYCKmYzEJGROrpSoxXN6DNXPltzdiUzg/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.40o7mijeapa7
https://tomg2021.substack.com/p/the-markup-cult-is-taking-over/comment/119999112
see also
https://github.com/w3c/authentic-web-workshop/blob/main/minutes/2025-05-06AuthWeb.md
It kind of sounds like a protection racket for the web, that will shut down inconvenient truths.
https://foundationforfreedomonline.com/us-funded-censorship-hubs-drive-eus-war-on-tech-companies/
https://foundationforfreedomonline.com/microsoft-government-censorship-industry-revolving-door/
https://foundationforfreedomonline.com/the-censorship-logs-us-government-censorship-empire/
"In one revealing section from USAID’s Disinformation Primer, the government agency identifies the top disinformation threat as not being “state actors driving the issue” but rather that “problematic information more regularly originates from networks of alternative sites and anonymous individuals who have created their own ‘alt media’ online spaces.” Meaning, USAID sees the key threat as ordinary individuals online forming independent opinions online, not foreign intelligence agencies performing complex influence operations.
USAID goes on to to say “These alternative spaces include message board and digital distribution platforms (e.g., Reddit, 4chan, or Discord)… and gaming sites.”
USAID bemoans that such gaming sites and message boards allow ordinary citizens to to form “interpretations of the world that differ from ‘mainstream’ sources. With this, individuals contribute their own ‘research’ to the larger discussion, collectively reviewing and validating each other to create a populist expertise that justifies, shapes and supporters their alternative views.”
"
-from
https://foundationforfreedomonline.com/usaid-internal-documents-reveal-government-plot-to-promote-censorship-initiatives/
"...the Global Engagement Center (GEC) carries out state propaganda through willing participants from private media organizations
....The GEC coordinates with a global cartel of Soros-, Gates-, Omidyar-, and Big Tech-funded “fact-checkers” through the Poynter Institute’s International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) to control the international media narrative."
-from
https://aflegal.org/america-first-legal-lawsuit-against-the-department-of-state-obtains-documents-from-the-global-engagement-center-exposing-how-private-media-organizations-carry-out-state-propaganda/
"For many decades, governments have relied on the legacy media as their “gatekeepers of information and news.” But now that “anyone can create and disseminate information,” the state and its gatekeepers are struggling to compete. The fact that we, the people, can now communicate online and share ideas and information between ourselves has been identified as a global threat at the intergovernmental level."
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2024/09/investigative-reports/who-is-shaking-the-jar/
Authentic Web mini-workshop series: Meeting 3, trustnet
https://github.com/w3c/authentic-web-workshop/blob/main/minutes/2025-06-10AuthWeb.md
What it boils down to imo is that they are proposing that people outsource their judgement to a machine. Why would that ever be a good idea? Who would be behind the machine?...certain people, thats who, so they're proposing everyone outsource their judgement to those certain people. This is nothing but automating, and thereby accelerating and maybe mandating, cult behavior.
"However all the opprobrium ... should also be applied to ... various news outlets who didn’t fact-check the content even as they posed as the bastions of the truth..."
They are deliberately trying to drum up support for "fact checking" imo.
There is an effort in the W3C, which is an arm of the regime, to establish the "credible web" where everything is "fact checked". This I regard as an effort to shut down citizen journalism in favor of outlets approved by the regime. By regime I mean the current world government, which is run by the Rothschild syndicate and their Rockefeller front.
https://drmathewmaavak.substack.com/p/when-ai-hallucinates-into-a-global/comment/119997990
https://montanarcc.substack.com/p/is-substack-just-an-echo-chamber/comment/107569847
The Markup Cult has been nurtured by the ruling class to keep control of the internet/www/social media for itself, but the Markup Cult itself could *one day* be pried from their hands and appropriated by We The People.
The Markup Cult is Taking Over
...and deprogramming is an urgent priority
https://tomg2021.substack.com/p/the-markup-cult-is-taking-over
from https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-solid/2025Mar/0000.html
"Call for Papers OPAL2025
Workshop on ODRL and Beyond: Practical Applications and Challenges for Policy-Based Access and Usage Control
...
The workshop provides a venue for researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders to engage in scientific discourse"
Notice they don't include "people" in their description of who the venue is for, unless by "stakeholders" they mean any stakeholders pursuing the dracula of Technocracy.
Invitation to anew iteration of "Credweb"
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credibility/2025Feb/0001.html
"Dear CredWeb member,
Below you'll find a note from some of the top honchos at the W3C. They recently decided that the current state of the internet... well... it sucks. And they want to make it better in the ways that they can as the organization where the internet was pretty much invented.
But rather than create a new group, they realized that there's a group that's been trying to make the internet less sucky for a while now, the group you belong to, the CredWeb Community Group."
I think the "top honchos at the W3C" would do well to have some light shown on them.
"...new Ontologies will most likely be needed to express guarantees of an organization's freedom from conflicts of interest when dealing with an individual, and Verifiable Credentials about an organization's conflicts of interest or lack thereof will need to be verified by individuals. This will be the reverse of the usual flow of verification, which is that an organization is usually verifying claims from an individual and not the other way around, and so it may also require procedures or protocols not yet developed."
--from
Tools Needed for Power Mismatches
on the World Wide Web and Social Media
https://tomg2021.substack.com/p/tools-needed-for-power-mismatches