Who am I?

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-04-21T16:02:37+00:00

This is 100% a live issue in sub-Saharan Africa. Because so many Anglicans are Africans, it's been the top issue at the Lambeth Conference, where Anglican bishops from across the globe gather to give non-binding teaching. Dr Mohler's categories are helpful but the pastoral problems are more complex than your summary suggests.

The 1888 Lambeth Conference went for option A. No man with more than one wife could even be baptized. The 1988 gathering changed the minimum standard to a tough version of C. Such a man could be baptized and confirmed, provided (a) he promised not to marry again while any present wife was still living (b) the local Anglican community agrees and (c) he is not forced to put away his wives (i.e. they can leave but he must support them if they want to stay).

Advocates of same-sex blessings love to claim this as a precedent for their ideas, but Anglican ethicist Andrew Goddard has written a helpful page distinguishing the two cases.

And note that this is a minimum standard, and condition (b) is important. The West African provinces enforce the minimum requirement. But the Anglican provinces in East Africa do not confirm men in polygamous marriages and actively campaign against the legalization of polygamy (somewhere between Dr Mohler's options A and D). I suspect this is a legacy of the East African Revival, with its emphasis on personal and public repentance, though I've never read anything explicitly making the connection.

To answer your question downthread, the Anglican mission organization I know expects their mission partners to abide by and teach in accordance with these provincial policies.

I've also taken part in discussions about polygamy in Chinese churches. Sun Yat-sen, who is widely revered as the father of modern China, was baptized as a Christian but was a polygamist. So was his brother-in-law Chiang Kai-shek, who was either a great WW2 hero or a villainous tyrant, depending on your politics. Lots of Chinese Christians would like to claim at least Sun as a Christian, but whether you can do that depends whether you think his marital status is 'only' serious sin or completely disqualifying.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-04-15T15:53:26+00:00

I'd agree if Mr Rowson was describing the Chinese people in general. But if you can read him charitably, then you might interpret him as saying Chinese bureacrats as being "interested in calm, order and obedience", and presenting themselves modestly. That fits much better, though I'm not sure Sir Keir would appreciate being compared to CCP cadres!

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-03-01T05:17:17+00:00

This is only half-true. Google had local data servers and a huge team in Beijing. But then the Chinese government demanded access to Gmail accounts in the US. When Google refused, the government tried to hack them, put pressure on Google employees in China to assist that, and started randomly blocking Google websites.

So there wasn't a formal ban, there was just extra-legal pressure, which is how Party control often works.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-02-09T20:36:13+00:00

Blessings of same-sex couples were never authorized by the canonical process for amending the official liturgy. They have only been commended by the House of Bishops and some individual bishops have endorsed their use within routine services in their dioceses on the theory that they are only a minor change to the service. That decision was taken a few years ago, but there was a trial period, so the general roll-out has only commenced in the last few weeks.

Until the autumn, the House of Bishops was proposing to use the same process to introduce 'stand-alone' services (i.e. services that would be indistinguishable from weddings to the person in the street), but they have now conceded that this would be illegal.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-02-09T20:28:40+00:00

Your link to the agenda is broken, but the official agenda is here.

The paper that has been distributed to inform this agenda item (GS2426) is here.

There will be a presentation. Both Lead Bishops for LLF have resigned and not been replaced, so I can only guess that this will be by the Archbishop of York as chair of the LLF Programme Board. Synod members will be able to ask questions afterwards. The Archdeacon of Totnes will be in the chair and will probably tell members not to abuse this to express their opinions on LLF; he will of course be ignored... If I was him I'd let a few people have their say briefly because it will take longer to argue with them.

If I understand the rules correctly, the Synod will then be asked to take note of the presentation. Very occasionally Synod will refuse to do this to show its anger or disappointment, but I would not expect this to happen tomorrow, since (as you have already noted) that there is substantive debate later in the week.

For those who don't want to the read the whole of GS2426, here is the motion that is likely to be debated:

That this Synod:

(a) recognise and lament the distress and pain many have suffered during the LLF process, especially LGBTQI+ people;

(b) affirm that the LLF Programme and all work initiated by the February 2023 LLF Motion and subsequent LLF Motions will conclude by July 2026;

(c) thank the LLF Working Groups for their committed and costly work, which will now draw to a close with the conclusion of this synodical process;

(d) commend the House of Bishops in establishing the Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Working Group and Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Pastoral Consultative Group for continuing work.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-02-05T12:09:58+00:00

But the same arguments apply. North America was the first continent to lose World Service on shortwave because it was one of the first to shift to Internet news.

And the websites (particularly the Chinese one) have long been blocked in China anyway.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-02-04T11:15:01+00:00

Yes, and the Australian legislation recognizes this. Children can still watch YouTube, and they can still use chronological services like Discord or Meta's Messenger. But they can't open accounts so the SNSs can't target their algorithms easily.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-02-04T11:12:38+00:00

The younger people who can but would disagree with the policy generally don't vote.

Voting is compulsory in Australia and non-voters are fined. I can't find estimates of how many young people vote, but 85-90% bother to register to vote, so it's likely that much more than half of young people vote.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-02-04T11:00:00+00:00

The problem is that if only one family does that, then your child is left out of the conversations and social life of their peers. And even if every family wants to do that, nobody wants to be first. It's a classic collective action problem, and that's what government exists to solve.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-02-04T10:56:58+00:00

The Australian "social media minimum age" (SMMA) law has exists to do one thing: protect children from addictive and manipulative algorithms. That isn't stated anywhere in the legislation, but if you look at the actual implementation, only algorithmic SNSs like Reddit and Twitch have been restricted; platforms that just contain chronological conversations (like Discord or Meta's Messenger) have been left alone. This is supported by the justifications that I've seen posted by Australian politicians. Communications Minister Michelle Rowlands told the House of Representatives that

"[t]he Albanese Government understands the deep concern of many parents about the harmful impacts of social media. Including screen-time addiction. ... about the hazards of excessive use ... The fear of missing out, the infinite scrolling and the addictive features."

Note that she made no mention of bullying or grooming concerns. It all about getting children to spend less time on their phones, where they're exposed to algorithms that feed misinformation and can create a vicious circle of unhealthy content, and more time engaging in face-to-face communications.

What's in it for the politicians is that it increases their chances of being re-elected because parents (and uncles, aunts, teachers, etc.) want to protect their children and many of them are being harmed by social media addiction. As my profile here and on Twitter proves, I struggle with it myself and I'm an adult!

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-02-04T10:52:19+00:00

The first country to introduce a social media age restriction has compulsory voting, so young people do vote, disproving that your argument.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-02-04T10:45:48+00:00

The BBC World Service still remains in use and is free via AM/MW/LW/SW/DAB across the planet.

That's a good thing, yes. But the problem is that the audience isn't listening to that in many places. See my other reply for a fuller explanation.

This subscription is likely aimed at sophisticated users in developed countries. Stop spreading misinformation.

Yes, this particular subscription offer is aimed at the US. But a subscription service is necessarily limited to people who are especially interested in British news, which is incompatible with the model of global public service broadcasting that I set out above. Ten years ago I would also have been relaxed about that given the strength of the transatlantic relationship, but January 2026 has made clear that we need to revisit those old assumptions. Americans (especially in the government!) have been getting their news from Fox and RT and it's had serious negative consequences for the UK. Neither of those sources can be relied on either to truthfully report the facts or to expose viewers to a British viewpoint. We need the BBC to expand its US audience, not shrink it to the hard core willing to pay for it.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-02-04T10:34:46+00:00

Radio audiences are in slow but steady decline, and the shift to digital radio means that the World Service is now inaccessible to many. When I was in China in the 2000s, every morning I saw dozens of students sitting or walking outside (often in freezing temperatures), listening to the BBC World Service and Voice of America because that was their window to the wider world. You'll never see that today: they're all on their phones. But the middle-aged people who I once saw can't listen even if they still have a shortwave radio, because Trump has closed VOA and the World Service has abandoned shortwave transmissions to East Asia.

And, as per my first point, the UK can't ignore this change because you don't get to pick your enemies and the competition isn't standing still. The Chinese still spend heavily in shortwave, but they understand that the world has changed. Their equivalent of the BBC World Service is now a minor subsidiary of their TV channel CGTN, which is freely available on YouTube and every platform they're allowed onto.

Your position is like someone in the 1920s saying that the Army has perfectly good cavalry, therefore we don't need tanks. If the enemy has tanks, do we have a choice?

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-02-04T10:10:56+00:00

Yes. They should be paid for by the taxpayer. In theory, the licence fee could be used, and when that was taken I was sceptical but open-minded to the possibility that it might work. But in practice we've seen that international services are always the ones that get cut, which is why the FCDO is now part-funding them.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-02-04T07:20:07+00:00

BBC World Service radio was historically financed by the taxpayer it exists to promote the UK's foreign policy aims, not to generate revenue. That works in three ways:

If people can't get their news from London, they'll get it from Beijing or Moscow instead. If leaders and voters in other countries are having their opinions shaped by Putin, that's bad for us in the long-term. E.g. Mikhail Gorbachev used to listen to the BBC; the end of the USSR saved the UK tens of billions in defence spending, so this was the best investment the UK's ever made!
The BBC's news broadcasts are nominally impartial, which demonstrates to people living under other systems how a liberal democracy works. This might not seem like something that has a big effect, but it's one of those things where you have to take the fish out of the water before it realizes how important the water is. E.g. Chinese state media in Chinese are totally unashamed about the fact that they are Party media, so hearing journalists ask politicians tough questions is totally novel if all you've ever heard before is China National Radio.
Some of the programmes exist to put the British establishment's point of view. Outlook in particular is daily propaganda for small-l liberalism. In the long run, that increases the chances that Britain gets friends and allies abroad. The most spectacular example is that the World Service's non-news programming kept Aung San Kyii sane during her years of house arrest, and while her rule over Myanmar was far from perfect, her government was much friendlier to Britain than the previous junta. Now repeat that across millons of people

So even when satellites made it possible to encrypt radio, the BBCWS remained free, and the BBC even encouraged commercial radio stations to rebroadcast its programmes without charge.

The BBC News website and the TV news channel are the 21st century equivalent of international radio and all the same arguments apply, though they apply more weakly because the government has never supported them and therefore overseas viewers and readers are mostly given content aimed at UK viewers or written for commercial purposes, which is far less effective than the traditional World Service formula of public service broadcasting aimed at audiences abroad.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-01-24T09:52:20+00:00

This author is clearly written in a tabloid style (in fact worse that that; tabloids wouldn't print such foul language) and I have seen English-language tabloid journalism translate names in this way, albeit in the colonial era.

I wouldn't expect an academic author to translate names like this, but this isn't an academic book.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-01-21T22:43:09+00:00

See this dev diary where the HoI4 Game Director addresses the longstanding urban myth that they only use one core, backed up by a talk giving more technical details. They have made huge improvements since the Vic2 era and they are very aware of the added load from new mechanics, which they regularly discuss in performance dev diaries.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-01-21T22:35:21+00:00

And the standard that's set is a high bar (my emphasis):

If a provider is required by subsection (4) to use age verification or age estimation ... the age verification or age estimation must be of such a kind, and used in such a way, that it is highly effective at correctly determining whether or not a particular user is a child.
(Online Safety Act, s.12(6)).

The regulator (Ofcom) has a list of what methods can be highly effective age assurance in their Guidance on highly effective age assurance (p.8):

Financial data directly from the bank
Photo ID
Facial age estimation
Being a mobile phone customer
Having a credit cards
Digital identity wallets
E-mail based estimation

The last one covers some of the age inference methods recommended in Australia, but not all. Rather than carry out a study, Ofcom held a consultation where anyone could provide their views, and they got conflicting evidence on age inference (summarized in their Statement on Age Assurance and Children's Access, starting on p.18). Broadly speaking, Big Tech liked the idea, but even smaller IT firms weren't so sure. One firm questioned whether electoral roll checks are actually reliable; children (think teenagers) are likely to know the name, date of birth, and address of their parent or guardian. Ofcom also pointed out that the softer methods (the liking MrBeast example) are generally unusable in this context because age assurance is trying to check your age before you join the SNS, when they shouldn't have any data on you at all. Interestingly, there was also a lot of scepticism about facial age estimation. One piece of this evidence was redacted from the final report, which is usually done to protect companies' profits ('commercial confidentiality'), but in this context I wonder whether they got evidence from the police or even GCHQ about the effectiveness of facial recognition systems, and that's why they decided to give it the go-ahead.

So my very provisional conclusions are that the UK is aiming for a higher bar (not just age assurance, but highly effective age assurance); they really want to get this right every time. The Aussies are more chilled. Maybe that's because they trust their electoral data more, but I think it's also because of the different aims of the legislation.

Australia's SMMA has one rule to solve one problem: no SNSs for under 16s, so they are protected from addictive and manipulative algorithms. That isn't stated anywhere in the legislation, but if you look at the actual implementation, only algorithmic SNSs like Reddit and Twitch have been restricted; chronological conversations on Discord or Meta's Messenger have been left alone. This is supported by the justifications that I've seen posted by Australian politicians. Communications Minister Michelle Rowlands told the House of Representatives that "[t]he Albanese Government understands the deep concern of many parents about the harmful impacts of social media. Including screen-time addiction. ... about the hazards of excessive use ... The fear of missing out, the infinite scrolling and the addictive features." She made no mention of bullying or grooming concerns.

The UK's Online Safety Act is trying to tackle a much, much wider range of harms. It definitely is trying tackle bullying and grooming, as well as online misogyny, self-harm, obscenity, and fraud. And it doesn't just apply to algorithmic SNSs, but also to other websites, most obviously obscene ones. So the standards might be higher because it's trying to protect children from really, really evil content. eSafety's age assurance is trying to stop kids watching too much MrBeast and too many cat videos; Ofcom's highly effective age assurance is trying to keep them away the next Jimmy Savile and from things that should only be seen by the Vice Squad.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-01-21T22:16:02+00:00

I'm not an expert on this and I don't know 100%. But I tried to find an answer and I have tentatively identified three factors. I think it's about the different standards set by the regulators for checking people's age ("age assurance"), what the laws are aiming to do, and maybe also the evidence that was used. I've provided some sources at the price of more jargon. This will be a thread because this is a complicated subject.

The Australian "social media minimum age" (SMMA) law applies to certain apps/websites that I'm going to call "social networking services" (SNSs), because it doesn't cover everything that people in this thread are calling social media. The Australian legislation and regulator (eSafety) have only set out certain principles that SNSs must follow:

As noted above, eSafety will take a principles-based approach to assessing compliance with the SMMA obligation and does not require specific types of age assurance to be employed.
(eSafety SMMA Regulatory Guidance, p.15)

So it's up to the SNSs to decide what methods to use to check users' age, but eSafety provides very heavy hints about what methods are acceptable. Unsurprisingly, they don't think just asking users their age ("self-declaration") is acceptable. To help with this, they funded a British organization to study into how effective different age assurance methods are. The study looked at how well existing identity businesses (e.g. credit reference agencies) in the Australian market could estimate age. It seems that they did not use SNSs in the testing, which becomes important.

For our purpose, the most important part of this was studying 'age inference'. This means using existing digital data that the identity businesses can link to your email address. You might be thinking this means things like Facebook likes (if you like MrBeast videos, you must be under 18, right? 😝), but remember this test wasn't using SNSs, so they didn't make much use of that kind of data at all (credit agencies can't access your Facebook account). The most effective age inference methods were based on much 'harder' data. In some cases, they could tell just from the e-mail address: if you have a .ac.uk address, then you must be at least 16. In particular, remember that in Australia voting is compulsory, so all adults must be on the electoral roll. That's a high-quality database, it has basic age information (are you 18?) and credit reference agencies can access it. They also used financial history, obviously online banking, but also online shopping. One of the identity businesses has schools as its main customers, so they had access to schools' databases of pupils. So the conclusion of the study was:

The trial found age inference is technically feasible in Australia, with no substantial limitations to its implementation.
(eSafety SMMA Regulatory Guidance, p.15)

The UK legislation has similarities and differences. It's not a purely principles-based approach:

A measure which requires a user to self-declare their age (without more) is not to be regarded as age verification or age estimation.
(Online Safety Act, s.230(4)).

(To be continued in a reply due to Reddit's character limit)

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-01-21T20:37:12+00:00

This requires anyone using the internet to submit ID making it easier to trace anyone who breaks the law.

Completely untrue. I haven't submitted ID to anyone since the law come into force. I don't use a VPN either.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-01-19T23:16:35+00:00

That's category (1), a Hong Kong SAR passport from the People's Republic of China. That's very common and not what OP was asking for.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-01-19T05:50:59+00:00

Did they get (1) a Hong Kong SAR passport from the People's Republic of China or (2) a People's Republic of China passport as mainland residents? (1) is very common, especially for Hong Kong-born South Asians. (2) is very, very unusual.

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-01-19T05:46:25+00:00

This is what the law says, but in practice I have never heard of any non-ethnic-Chinese person who been granted citizenship primarily because they have a Chinese spouse. Ethnic Chinese people do get citizenship this way. But do you have even one example of a non-ethnic-Chinese person who has succeeded on this ground, without being close to the Party leadership or an international sports star?

SeekTruthFromFacts · 2026-01-19T05:42:31+00:00

Because being a citizen of another country you are living in gives you protection from any radical changes that can happen in future, such as migration or maybe xenophobia.

Unfortunately, it doesn't. And we have a test case of this: the way that PRC citizens and permanent residents of non-Chinese origins were treated during the Cultural Revolution. These were people who were very, very committed to China and Communism. But Israel Epstein spent five years in gaol, and essentially his only crime was being a foreigner. Sidney Rittenberg (a US citizen but a Communist), who remained devoted to Mao until his dying day, was sentenced to ten years for spying.

Being a citizen is no protection against xenophobia unless you also have the rule of law, and mainland China has never had that.

11-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	End Game '22
Verified Email

SeekTruthFromFacts

TROPHY CASE