> These NGOs have converged upon a unified strategy ...

Not just for the war on anonymity. NGOs, often funded by government money (so missing two third of their name), have unified on other topics.

One example that comes to mind is teaming up to organize the biggest influx of migrants into the EU following the arab spring movements: there have been hidden camera recording NGO employees explaining how to dodge controls, how to answer questions (by lying), and they've been actively helping sneaking people illegally in the EU.

A good question one could ask itself before downvoting me is this: if it's a fact that NGOs are teaming up, worldwide, to lie using the rethoric of "child safety" [1]... On which other topics did NGOs lie?

Or are we to believe all NGOs are good and well-meaning, except those working to end anonymity?

And before I forget: in Africa for example it's fully well known that NGO typical means "DGSE":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_General_for_Extern...

There are french "doctors" in some of those NGOs who know less about medicine than what I know about medicine by having ex-girlfriends that were doctors.

By squinting one's eye just a little it look like NGO is not that far from a synonym of "shady undercover gov op".

And btw why should any of my taxpayers dollars go to even a single NGO if it's non-governmental?

And another big one: while some of those NGOs have been hard at work passing legislation which as a a result gets people arrested for "hate speech" (or even just for saying "christian prayers in their heads") in the UK, other NGOs are even harder at work making sure that the absolute most horrible of all hate speech cannot ever be criticized "because it's religious".

The double standards are literally insane.

If I was in the UK, I'd GTFO. And not to the EU.

[1] speaking of which, btw, there are serious allegations about NGOs participating in child trafficking, for example in the Haiti SNAFU