by Nathan Smith

What first comes to mind when you see the government signalling that its proposed under-16 social media ban doesn’t go far enough?

Education Minister Erica Stanford said papers for her wider programme of work on countering the harms of social media were going through cabinet and the government would have more to say “next month.”

“The government is steadily progressing with work on social media and online harm policy, and due to this, Catherine Wedd’s Member’s Bill is being deprioritised in place of wider work,” she said.

Wider work, huh? Basically, we’re getting digital IDs. No doubt your response to this news would be best characterised as concerned. Maybe a soft chill ran up your spine. Political scepticism 101 teaches that any time a politician says, “won’t someone think of the children!” they are getting ready to do bad things to taxpaying adults. Even if you aren’t well-versed in Machiavellianism, removing anonymity from the internet doesn’t sound great, right?

Well, I’d like to suggest a different way of thinking about digital IDs. Napoleon I (Bonaparte, of course) said it best: never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

As always, I recommend thinking strategically about everything. If you don’t have a strategy, why are you even involved in politics? Just go home. If you do have a strategy, then the way you decide if an action is useful is whether it makes the next action easier. Anything that helps you win is strategic, no matter who performs the action.

I’ve been wanting to write about this for a while. The problem is that too many people assume that anything their political enemy does should automatically be opposed, simply because the enemy is doing it. But thinking strategically requires a sense of distance, not to mention clear-headedness. Sometimes, your enemy will use a tactic or suggest a proposal that is perfectly usable by your side as well. A good tactic (tactics support strategy) is good no matter who suggests it. The trick is in how you frame it.

Here are a few quick examples. 1) Immigration isn’t a bad thing if the people arriving in your country are from compatible cultures and ethnicities; 2) taking care of animals and plants is a deeply nationalist idea, environmentalism does not belong to the communists; 3) and social welfare operated by a strong religious institution (such as the church before the English “Reformation”) made everyone’s life better.

To oppose immigration, environmentalism or welfare strictly because the communists who rule us today are using these ideas is to mistake framing for enemy action. The communists have captured those concepts and reframed them to help boost their power. But all good concepts and policies are politically neutral, so, as with babies and bathwater, don’t reject a good thing just because your enemies are doing it.

Let’s swing back to the topic at hand.

Should we oppose digital IDs that link our real identities and names to our internet data?

First, we must understand what the internet is. The internet is not a TV with email. That might be how you and I use it, but the internet is not classed a form of entertainment. The internet is best thought of as a giant series of databases. Some of these databases look slick and smooth, such as Facebook or YouTube. But under the hood, every single website you’ve ever visited is just a glorified database.

As such, there is no such thing as online privacy. Back in the 1990s, it was technically possible to surf the net anonymously, but to set up a private online session required flicking so many digital switches that even an airline pilot would be daunted by the procedure. No matter how you try to cover your tracks, little pieces of digital exhaust (data) will always be generated when you are online.

Fast-forward to 2026, and the ability to trace online users is easier than ever. Your local fish and chip shop probably knows you better than you know yourself, given how easy it is to paint a picture of customer habits. Not only does each person carry a highly complex tracking device (smartphone), but almost everything we interact with is connected to the internet. Even if you think you’ve escaped the all-seeing eye, the biggest databases will have a “shadow profile” of you built from all the data generated by interactions with your friends and acquaintances. No man is a digital island. There is no escape.

In other words, digital IDs are already here; they’re just not operated by governments. Private companies know everything about us, and they use this data to sell goods and services. Governments must still play by privacy rules when using any data about their citizens. But international companies have a million ways to skirt around those rules. Thankfully, it is in the interest of (most) businesses to keep their customers alive and healthy so we can buy more of their stuff. Nevertheless, there is so much data about each of us that if it ever fell into the wrong hands, things would get sketchy, frighteningly fast.

This is where strategic thinking is so beneficial. Is all this data good or bad? The answer is: for whom? If the current communist regime has access to the dark depths of data about each of us, then that’s obviously bad. But when (not if) my friends gain control of the government and all that data, this will be a very, very good thing.

The current regime is happy to create digital IDs because, like all regimes, it assumes it will be in power forever. This mindset is baked into the “Western Christian” psyche. In this model of the world, every regime will rise and fall until the last regime, which will reign unopposed for eternity. Obviously, this last regime is meant to be god’s, but we silly humans think it will be temporal as well. Hence why every “Western” regime thinks it is the End of History.

Of course, I’m willing to bet that the current dysfunctional, weak-shouldered communists won’t be the last regime to grace this planet. And when history restarts, I want a system that will ensure none of those people ever get power again. I’m thinking 10, 20, 50 years ahead. And guess what? This regime is stupid enough to build that exact system right now!

Sure, digital IDs and mass data harvesting will shrink my privacy, and the databases will mean anyone who doesn’t submit to the current regime will have a tough time. Yet it’s not like we have much to lose. We are already outside of power. What are they going to do, take away the power we already don’t have? We know we are ruled. Digital IDs change nothing in that regard.

However, precisely because the current regime is stupid and weak, they don’t realise that their strongest defence is their anonymity. Since it is impossible to tell just by looking if a person is a communist, such people have managed to exist in broad daylight for more than a century. Because of this camouflage, when people refer to a “they” who rule us, it’s always hard to describe who “they” are. This has always been the regime’s best protection.

Now the arrogant communists are giving us the greatest gift of all: the ability to show, without fault, exactly who “they” are. This is strategically important because an enemy must be defined before it can be defeated.

Given that everyone will be captured by digital IDs, the enemy will also be caught up in its own data harvesting. In fact, they will likely be enthusiastic about participating in the digital ID system since it will be framed as a technology of power to bolster the regime.

They don’t suspect that their own digital IDs will mean none of these people, or their families, will be able to hide. The data will connect everything they do, from how many times they pick up their phones each hour to their exact DNA combination. By asking the databases simple questions, the next regime will create a perfect picture of the enemy and ensure they never come close to having power again.

From a strategic perspective, I want more digital IDs.

I want more internet surveillance. I want less privacy. I want the databases to be filled with the smallest, innocent particles of data exhaust gathered by any and every object and device, from the kitchen fridge to the traffic light cameras. I want to win, so I must know my enemy better than it knows itself. And I want this data gathering to begin while my enemy thinks it will rule forever, not after it loses power. I want them to be relaxed about digital IDs. I want to have the data that shows exactly who they are today.

All I’m saying is maybe we should listen to the wise advice from a long-dead French dictator before yelling about a “control grid.” Have you thought about this strategically?

For whom are digital IDs good?

Originally published on The Good Oil.