FWIW I agree with the intent of the Act, and am generally in favour of a sovereign firewall.
Edit: In a nutshell - almost every other transfer of goods and services across national borders is subject to quality standards. Why do we give a pass to a system that allows deep, individualised access to people's personal lives and mental processes?
I'd argue transfer of services is not really an issue. People buying services from a foreign entity is a pretty fringe case, and most legitimate businesses will try to establish a local presence for that anyway.
Sovereign firewalls are mostly used by countries that have them for censorship and surveillance, and I think letting governments use a pretext of digital services being able to avoid tolls and taxes to establish such a powerful tool would be a huge mistake.
Right now you're downvoted for expressing an opinion that I believe deserves a deeper discussion.
I don't want the government to decide which thoughts I can access and which ones I can't, but I also understand that allowing a foreign power (let's say Russia, although "the US" works just as fine) to freely run undercover propaganda and/or destabilization campaigns without any recourse doesn't look good either. And while I agree with "when in doubt aim for the option with more freedom", I can understand those who share your position.
What about domestic entities running undercover propaganda campaigns - as we have seen e.g. with Cambridge Analytica? Should we maybe focus on the more fundamental problem of our democracies being vulnerable to propaganda campaigns rather than making sure that only "good" and "sovereign" propaganda campaigns are allowed?
> Should we maybe focus on the more fundamental problem of our democracies being vulnerable to propaganda campaigns
Step 1 is reduce your attack surface :)
As a second point, democracies are propaganda campaigns - it's a feature, not a bug.
I believe that national cultural and societal norms play a key part in self-regulation. I think it's too much to ask for those balancing forces to work as effectively without first turning down the firehose.
Being able to implement any decision by running a targeted campaign discouraging it's opponents from voting and swaying the undecided can't be a feature or we have very different understanding of democracy.
By closing up we defend us from some threats, but open gates wide for others. Foreign actors compete against much stronger domestic media machines and as you mentioned have to operate in foreign cultural environments. Gaining true influence also always involves financial flows, not just propaganda campaigns, so it is sure possible to mitigate these threats without closing information flow.
Consider the opposite threat of democracies being undermined from within. If some internal "threat actor" gets control of the executive branch and of the media and also can prevent information flow from the outside, very little can be done against it.
I think it is critical to keep in mind this second possibility even when the first threat seems more urgent.
There are entire political industries openly dedicated to swaying the undecided! It's a messy business, but that's what we have.
Propaganda is not necessarily to gain influence or money. Eg: Country x just wants to mess with people's heads and turn them on each other to weaken a rival country. Or: Country y runs a crafted propaganda campaign against a rival. As a result, some sector of its own economy starts doing better at the expense of its rival.
>If some internal "threat actor" gets control of the executive branch and of the media and also can prevent information flow from the outside, very little can be done against it.
I understand the scenario (it's far from new), but that's what the design of any particular democracy is supposed to minimise. Term limits, separation of government powers, etc.
Something needs to be done. The outcomes are manifestly bad. I can't take the pro-freedom intellectual argument seriously unless it's coupled with a suite of pragmatic solutions to the negative side effects I am observing with my own senses. The intellectual walls of text just aren't papering over that reality.
That's just as bad of an argument as so-called intellectual walls of text. Nothing needs to be done, the outcomes are not bad. My argument is as strong as yours.
The Internet Research Agency organizing multiple Black Lives Matter protests due to control over approximately 50% of the largest identity-based Facebook groups is just one small example on a long list of examples of social unrest and the consequential ushering in of sectarianism and destruction of democracy that the current status quo is enabling. The pro-freedom types do not even know this is happening let alone have any solutions to it. Turning a blind eye is all they have. So until they show an awareness of the existence of the issue I will be siding with the only people who have put any effort into addressing the problems.
Lets assume you are right that there is effectively a constant stream of low level sybil attacks attempting to destabilize society, and they are effective.
Censoring view points is equivalent to signal boosting other view points. Why do you trust the UK government to select the correct view points given all the strong evidence to the contrary?
>I don't want the government to decide which thoughts I can access and which ones I can't
That would be an interesting discussion in itself, but even so - accessing material in isolation over the internet removes all of the benefits of cultural and community self-regulation.
>freely run undercover propaganda and/or destabilization campaigns
I'm of the opinion that WWW3 has already happened - it was a war for hearts and minds waged over the internet, and we've already lost.
> I'm of the opinion that WWW3 has already happened - it was a war for hearts and minds waged over the internet, and we've already lost.
If the open, unfettered exchange of culture and ideas is such a threat to our system then we deserve to lose. If my only option is to be stuck in a system that enforces ideological conformity on its subjects, then I’d rather it be the Chinese system. At least it’s not so dysfunctional!
If we are receiving all of the downsides of a liberal democracy without the benefits, what’s the point anymore?
You have it backwards. Ideological conformity these days is enforced by creating the illusion that everyone around you is ideologically conforming.
The question is: is there a defense against this?
Your answer currently is there is no defense because creating an illusion of unanimous ideological conformity counts as an exchange of ideas and that exchange must not be hindered.
The debate is over whether the right to conduct Sybil attacks is more precious than the right to freedom of thought. The question is vastly harder than many people in this thread seem to believe.
My personal take is that the right to freedom of thought is more fundamental and that the value of freedom of speech is via its support for freedom of thought.
Isn’t that what every company that sells technology does—build demos and showcase uses in order to provoke the imagination and motivate sales? No company is perfect, but what Microsoft is doing here is hardly unusual.
I mean this in the best possible way, but I don't think you're using "altruistic" correctly. Altruism is "showing a selfless concern for the well-being of others." I think you're looking for "naive," and Microsoft is some combination of cynical and manipulative.
Good point, thanks! I meant to say that they were taking an outlook that cast Microsoft's intentions as altruistic when (in my view) the intentions are more along the lines of cynical and manipulative, as you said.
We have built Rover, an OSS tool that allows you to run multiple instances of Claude (and Codex, Gemini...) while keeping them from stepping on each other toes using containerized environments and Git worktrees https://github.com/endorhq/rover/
You can use Rover (disclaimer, I am one of the cofounders) which is an open source tool that you can use to parallelize the work of coding agents that in addition to Claude also works with Gemini, Codex and Qwen https://github.com/endorhq/rover/
This matches our experience developing with agents. In particular, as we wanted to use multiple agents in the background to do tasks, we had to really invest in different areas so they would not go in wild directions or have to ask continually for feedback, defeating the purpose of working in the background. First, we needed to provide relevant context on how to do the task (some of it is "generic" like Svelte documentation, some of it is specific to how to write tests for our particular project), be extremely detailed and specific in the prompt about what we want and how to go about it (divide it in different well defined steps) and finally provide with specific tools via MCP (like MySQL access and installing system packages). Once we consistently do all this work upfront, it really pays off because you can launch a large number of agents in parallel that don't interfere with each other (git worktrees, containerized environments) and don't require babysitting for the most part. We just open sourced the tooling we used internally for this: https://github.com/endorhq/rover
The problem with every single tool in the category that I've come across (e.g. Conductor, Sculptor) is that they assume a single repository. Very rarely in my career working on enterprise software have I been in a situation where all my work was constrained to a single repo. Usually a story or feature spans several repos (whether split between frontend/backend, or a repo-per-service). As an engineer in these situations I never work in isolation considering only one repo -- I work across all of them at once and then prep all the PRs together. I'm not saying this multi-repo approach is good, just that it is the state of the world right now in many cases.
So imo tools like this need to work at a level above a single repo. The agent needs to start by cloning all repos needed for the task, and go from there.
I've solved this in the past using versioned dependencies. Repos get tagged releases, other repos can specify which version they depend on, then the deployment script has to resolve those dependencies and install the right release versions of everything else.
You can also use GitHub submodules to implement a pattern like this, but I don't really trust them for some reason.
Thanks for your feedback! I faced this in the past. As you mentioned, monorepos are more common these days, but multi-repo is an established approach in many teams. The way I "solved" this situation was to move all the related projects into a single folder with a parent AGENTS.md file (CLAUDE.md, etc.). Then, I run Rover / Claude / Gemini on this folder.
However, this is not ideal. Due to the amount of code, it usually misses many things to do. We are currently exploring specific workflows for these use cases, trying to help agents to prepare a complete plan.
Another similar case we are working on is to support spawning the same task across different repositories. This would help teams to apply refactor or changes in different projects at the same time.
Since Sculptor allows you to use custom docker containers (devcontainers), you can check out the other projects in there.
Then your primary project (from Sculptor's perspective) is simply whatever contains the devcontainer / dockerfile that you want it to use (to pull in all of those repos)
It's still a little awkward though -- if you do this, be sure to set a custom system prompt explaining this setup to the underlying coding agent!
This is a great article and not sure why it got so few upvotes. It captures the way we have been working for a while and why we developed and open sourced Rover (https://endor.dev/blog/introducing-rover), our internal tool for managing coding agents. It automates a lot of what Simon describes like setting up git worktrees, giving each agent its own containerized environment and allowing mixing and matching agents from different vendors (ie Claude and Codex) for different tasks
