US, Over 55 Other Countries Commit To Democratic Internet Governance (cnn.com) 72
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: More than 55 countries and the United States announced their commitment Thursday to defending a free and open internet, agreeing to uphold digital human rights in response to rising authoritarianism in cyberspace. The agreement (PDF), known as the Declaration for the Future of the Internet, aims to forestall an emerging "splinternet" characterized by the growing repression of internet users in closed regimes such as Russia and China -- and the divergence of those countries from the internet's founding principles of universal access and unfettered information flow. Concerns about the internet's long-term trajectory have been amplified by the war in Ukraine, according to senior Biden administration officials, as Russia has moved to block western social media services and penalized the sharing of accurate information about the conflict.
Many of the commitments outlined in the agreement reflect existing US policy initiatives, and the administration officials described the declaration as a way to organize and harmonize those efforts internationally. Under the agreement, countries have pledged not to abuse internet technologies for illegal surveillance; block content or websites in violation of so-called net neutrality principles; or use digital tools to undermine trust in elections. They agreed to support multilateral efforts against cybercrime, an issue that's grown in significance as businesses and governments alike have reeled in the face of devastating ransomware attacks. They committed to using only "trustworthy" network equipment, a nod to the spying risks the US and its allies have said are associated with Chinese vendors such as Huawei. And they joined together in reaffirming support for the decentralized, consensus-driven approach that for decades has underpinned decisions about how the internet should work.
Many of the commitments outlined in the agreement reflect existing US policy initiatives, and the administration officials described the declaration as a way to organize and harmonize those efforts internationally. Under the agreement, countries have pledged not to abuse internet technologies for illegal surveillance; block content or websites in violation of so-called net neutrality principles; or use digital tools to undermine trust in elections. They agreed to support multilateral efforts against cybercrime, an issue that's grown in significance as businesses and governments alike have reeled in the face of devastating ransomware attacks. They committed to using only "trustworthy" network equipment, a nod to the spying risks the US and its allies have said are associated with Chinese vendors such as Huawei. And they joined together in reaffirming support for the decentralized, consensus-driven approach that for decades has underpinned decisions about how the internet should work.
Can you smell the Freedom? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Refrain from using the Internet to undermine the electoral infrastructure, elections and political processes, including through covert information manipulation campaigns.
Why does their declaration of freedom have a great big backdoor for political censorship in it?
Re: (Score:1)
Because "Internet" + "governance" ....not Internet User governance or Web governance or Application Governance or Development governance,... does not imply a state in itself so "how" the Internet is used should not be a nationalized and packaged product. And it's my opinion that the "not"s I mentioned, community governance should "get off" the censorship lifeboat as it is dumbing down the discussion. How do you have mass media without censorship anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a backdoor - it's the entire purpose. The rest of the stuff is just meant to distract from this.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Because that is a large component on how people currently in power sitting at the table on those meetings got in power in the first place. It's fucked up, but in many ways political continuity and stability has to trump truth.
It's a part of human condition and how we manage huge entities like nation states and supernational alliances that we're utterly unfit to deal with in terms of what we're evolved for.
The real fight will not be on "no censorship". It will be on "how much censorship" and "against who". A
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Because that is a large component on how people currently in power sitting at the table on those meetings got in power in the first place.
Perhaps. But then this is just the status quo with some additional hypocrisy.
"You have the freedom to say things we agree with."
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
First of all, hypocrisy is a natural part of human condition. That means it's not an argument against systems created by humans. It's merely a condemnation of it. One who has never been a hypocrite can cast the first stone.
I suppose I should have clarified to ensure that this misunderstanding doesn't arise that "universally applied to everyone" didn't mean "from ideological point of view" but "from objective point of view".
I.e. the rules should be "don't be racist", not "don't be racist against people who a
Re: (Score:2)
You truly are a precious snow flake.
Re: (Score:2)
The quote you provide demonstrates me to be the diametric opposite of a special snowflake. I'm making an argument from the point of view if a generalist who specifically notes that all sides have a point and all sides need to reign in their more extreme tendencies..
Are you trying to convince yourself? (Score:2)
Because you sure aren't convincing anyone else.
Listen to what you're saying. We need to stop free speech so that corrupt parasites can continue to rob people in order to maintain their position.
Shit you might just as well argue for a permanent state of war as it's politically stable and provides an outlet for violent impulses.
Re: (Score:2)
I said no such thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need your rest grandpa. You're seeing things, just like you're seeing me being a "snowflake" for making a centrist point that everyone has some merit and some extremism.
To get support for adoption B-b (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does their declaration of freedom have a great big backdoor for political censorship in it?
Probably to get support for its international adoption. It's incumbent politicians that have to vote for it to get it passed.
A treaty to mandate the censorship, internationally, of any opposition claims of election fraud should be very popular with incumbent politicians. The more tyrannical and subject to opposition movements, the more popular.
Re: (Score:1)
Its almost like we are witnessing democratic western governments wholly embrace the ideals laid out in 1984.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Yesterday's cautionary tale is today's blueprint. It's staggering how quickly public opinion turned against freedom of speech.
jesus, yesterday the US gov't announced the DHS would be creating their own version of 'the ministry of truth'. /. would be in favor of it. Because you know, misinformation and all that. Who decides what constitutes misinformation? the experts? politicians? Great. there's no conceivable way that line of thinking will ever blow up in our face
and oddly enough, i'd bet a good chunk of
Re: (Score:3)
So much for critical thinking and making up your own mind
What makes you think the general populace is capable of critical thinking or making up their own mind?
Most people do what other monkeys do.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you're being snarky and edgy. But, if you are truly that cynical, and honestly have that little faith in people; then lying or meanies online is the least of our worries. and no amount of mommy government overreach will fix our problems.
Basically we're starting down the path towards quite literally 1984 style thought policing; if you control the narrative through all channels of communication and can effectively outlaw/censor disagreement, well then you can make the populace believe whatever you wan
Re: (Score:3)
I hope you're being snarky and edgy.
I'm being realistic. Humanity has proven it cannot handle the information that is thrown at it through the internet. Large parts of the world population are unable to sift through it and decide in a meaningful way which information is factual, which information is useful, etc.
I increasingly see people acting on 'things' they 'read' on the internet. There are protests based on false internet rumors. The internet, by scale alone, makes it so some random lunatic with a twisted world view can have an audience o
Re: (Score:2)
In case you haven't noticed, most of the "Defenders of OUR democracy" view 1984 and Brave New World as how to books.
Re: (Score:1)
The DHS “Disinformation” board was initiated by the same party that brought us the Steele Dossier. This level of shameless, in your face hypocrisy is matched only by Orwell’s “war is peace”, “freedom is slavery” slogans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you get to "censorship" from "refrain"? Refrain is an act of restraint. If you decide to refrain from writing or saying something, that's not censorship.
This declaration is signed by government officials representing their countries... So where it says "refrain" it means the government will refrain. That item means the participating countries pledge not to use the internet to undermine each other's elections. A government deciding to not do something is not censorship.
snicker (Score:2)
Oh yeah? Which ones?
So not that one then I guess
I can imagine their response (Score:2)
It's perfectly legal when we do it!
Or when we agree with our partner countries to spy on each other's citizens and share the info.
Fortunately nobody cares about ensuring rights for other country's citizens or this scheme might fall apart.
Re: (Score:1)
We can legalize marijuana while telling the federal to mind it's own business but can't have an honest discussion about Internet user's rights...?
Hypocritical of the United States (Score:5, Insightful)
... to sign on to this, in the immediate aftermath of the US's DHS creating its own Ministry Of Truth, this week, to fight all the wrongthink that's about to be let loose on the about-to-be-uncensored Twitter.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
There are two genders.
Rachel Levine is a man.
The Covid-19 virus originated in a Chinese lab.
Natural immunity is better than vaccine-based immunity.
Ivermectin can be an effective treatment for Covid-19.
There was massive election fraud in 2020.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah
I can't wait for the DHS to censor something and have it wind up in the courts. It's still our republic for a little while.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not aware of anything in the Patriot Act that created the authority of the DHS to censor anything. I'm not even sure this so-called "Ministry" is permitted under the act.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress doesn't even have the authority to pass a law allowing it according to the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
No matter how free and open (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No matter how free and open the internet is i dont trust it,
The more free and open it is, the less you should trust it.
Freedom and trust are two different things.
Re:What Utter Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Democratic Internet Governance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can fuck off now.
Re: (Score:1)
The whole effort led by a country that will not allow a former president to have a presence on any major social media platform.
What a giant load of hypocrites, the equivalent of U.N. "Human Rights" organizations headed by China.
But there's a difference, no matter how slight. In the US, it's basically the West Coast information technology corporations, mostly headed by political liberals, that's banning or suspending certain groups and individuals from their online platforms. The federal government is not directly involved in these actions. There's no equivalent of the Great Firewall of China, or its 50 cent army of astroturfers in the US.
The situation I believe is different in Europe. The German government, for example, has a long
Re:What Utter Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
"Mostly headed by political liberals"? You are making things up so you can feel like a victim.
The guy has HIS OWN platform. He's a billionaire. He is also on his buddy's platform (Rupert Murdoch, Fox news, Sky news, #1 mainstream media), and many others. I don't see many political liberals on there. Same old narrative, poor little billionaires, we must do more to help them. Maybe ANOTHER trump trillion dollar tax cut for the elites?
Re: (Score:2)
"Mostly headed by political liberals"? You are making things up so you can feel like a victim.
LOL. I'm apolitical. I think that's what they call centrists nowadays. I was replying to a poster who I perceived to be politically conservative. Now I think there's room for everybody in the political spectrum, save for those who advocate terrorism or armed insurrection. You're right, however, in suggesting an error in post. I was talking about social media platforms not online platforms in general. My bad for the oversight.
Re: What Utter Bullshit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What Utter Bullshit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The whole effort led by a country that will not allow a former president to have a presence on any major social media platform.
That is a private sector business decision that none of them see him as a net positive to the bottom line. Unless you want the government to create a social media platform? I thought you people were all about capitalism?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole effort led by a country that will not allow a former president to have a presence on any major social media platform.
The country has no say who can and can't use a social media platform. Maybe if your orange fuck-wit in chief weren't such an orange fuck-wit he wouldn't get himself banned.
Maybe if you had a brain your post wouldn't be modded down as Troll either.
More empty promises and buzzwords (Score:5, Insightful)
From the agreement:
We affirm our commitment to promote and sustain an Internet that: is an open, free, global, interoperable, reliable, and secure and to ensure that the Internet reinforces democratic principles and human rights and fundamental freedoms; offers opportunities for collaborative research and commerce; is developed, governed, and deployed in an inclusive way so that unserved and underserved communities, particularly those coming online for the first time, can navigate it safely and with personal data privacy and protections in place; and is governed by multistakeholder processes. In short, an Internet that can deliver on the promise of connecting humankind and helping societies and democracies to thrive.
When I hear phrases like "multistakeholder processes" I don't know whether to laugh or to throw up. The whole document reads as though it was written by the most sophomoric brown-nosing members of a self-congratulatory third-rate HR department.
One paragraph starts with "The partners in this Declaration intend to uphold a range of key principles, set out below, regarding the Internet and digital technologies". It ends with "These principles are not legally binding". In other words, it's all glad-handing and hot air fueled by copious quantities of bluster and political bullshit.
I'm surprised there were no reports of the signatories going out onto the streets and kissing babies in the name of Internet Democracy. Gag me with a chainsaw.
Re: (Score:2)
People said the same thing about non-legally binding climate change targets, yet many countries have met or exceeded their agreed goals anyway.
No politician is going to sign up to rules that could result in them being dragged to an international court for non-compliance, but that doesn't mean that these things have no effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair point - I guess these things need to start as suggestions and wish-lists before they gather momentum. Maybe what puts me off the most is the flowery, oily, vague, non-specific language. In retrospect I have a feeling it might be a necessary part of whatever the "process" turns out to be, but I'm damned if I can figure out why. A soporific and hypnotic effect, perhaps?
Let's ban censorship (Score:2)
Unless Cuba wants more internet cables, then the USA is against it.
That doesn't have tits, penises and prostitutes but does have pornography (which is all three at once).
Meanwhile, in the EU (Score:3)
internet's founding principles of universal access and unfettered information flow
Yeah, right.
EU law targets Big Tech over hate speech, disinformation [npr.org]
They're not filtering the information flow. They're stopping disinformation. Really different. Either that, or the EU just wants to violate this commitment before the ink dries.
And yes, the 55 countries includes a lot of EU countries.
this is a joke an empty political gesture (Score:2)
The US, the country with the massive spying and gathering of metadata on the internet, is part of signing this agreement. This is how you recognize this is an empty document, where the bad ac
Re: (Score:1)
Free speech, but not really (Score:3, Informative)
From the document:
" Online platforms have enabled an increase in the spread of illegal or harmful content that can threaten the safety of individuals and contribute to radicalization and violence. Disinformation [...] is used to sow division and conflict between individuals or groups in society, undermining respect for and protection of human rights and democratic institutions."
Translation: "We support an Internet that controls and censors free speech. Not just actually illegal speech, but any speech in which we disagree." And many examples follow. Although it contains a lot of good, lofty stuff, it is sprinkled everywhere with their "vision" of controlled content. At least they only used the terms "equitable" twice and "climate change" twice.... amazing restraint!
No, they don't (Score:3)
They don't commit to any such thing.
See, DEMOCRACY requires that you accept the vote of the majority. Did we really sign up to a mechanism that means if, for example, a majority of the signatory countries don't like gay marriage, they can "vote" that the internet blocks references to such?
I expect not.
No, what this is, is either
1) bloviating hot air promises that are never meant to be kept, or worse
2) a lovely, publicly acceptable camouflage for authoritarian censorship, for "good" of course. #protectthechildren #fightterrorism