I can't think of an actual complaint against embedding US companies into what is in practice an important part of NSWs local governance; we might already do that credit and finance to some degree. But it just looks like another little step at creating a delicate system with single points of failure and unreasonably influential power-brokers.

It comes down to alignment of incentives. Google (for the sake of argument) has got into so many facets of peoples' lives that it's hard to tell what's what. If you're percieved to have contravened one of the TOCs, or your credit card fails or something, you could have your account suspended with no recourse. And Google have shown time and again that they have zero interest in universal due process, fairness or customer service. That's fine - it's their business model and their call to make.

But it is fundamentally out of step with the provision of essential services which should be afforded to all.

And then add to that the fact that when it goes wrong it disproportionally affects those more vulnerable. It starts to look a lot like disenfranchisement of minorities. What if you suddenly have no phone or email, and that's your only way of communicating with your support network? What if Google decides to pull the plug on your phone and you don't have money to buy a new one?

On the flip side, the government has a monopoly on welfare, violence, justice, etc. That's a good thing, and it's negotiated by democracy. However, using that monoploy to coerce people into using commercial duopolies is fundamentally anti-democratic.

Literally paragraph 3 of the article.

Anyone who thinks you don't need a driver's licence or equivalent proof of age card is 100% having themselves on, there is no meaningful opt out.

"It’s optional and doesn’t replace the plastic card"

My point is the government can and will make your life a pain.