The US Just Joined A Global Internet Censorship Committee

Author: Public-Choice

Posts

Total: 104
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
The United States just joined a coalition of 60 partners, including 55 countries in signing a declaration call the "Declaration for the Future of the Internet."

According to the declaration, the 60 partners will "Protect and strengthen the multi-stakeholder approach to governance that keeps the Internet running for the benefit of all."

If you're familiar with the World Economic Forum, a stakeholder is someone who has benefit from something, as opposed to a customer who buys and uses the product. So this new internet will protect governments and other stakeholders and not their citizens.

The declaration also states:

"In signing this Declaration, the United States and partners will work together to promote this vision and its principles globally, while respecting each other’s regulatory autonomy within our own jurisdictions and in accordance with our respective domestic laws and international legal obligations."
This was supposedly to counter "a trend of rising digital authoritarianism where some states act to repress freedom of expression, censor independent news sites, interfere with elections, promote disinformation, and deny their citizens other human rights."

So... It takes authoritarian censorship to stop... authoritarian censorship?

Yeah... That'll uphold people's freedom of expression and rights...

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,190
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
Yep, that's how it's always worked.

Some people tell others what to, and others do as they are told, and some moan but are ignored, and some don't do as they are told and are not ignored.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Public-Choice
Honestly a VPN 2-year contract is reasonably priced and worth it the moment one can afford it these days. I will say that and end the discussion there.

I recommend NordVPN.
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4
some don't do as they are told and are not ignored.
Man I miss mean tweets.
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@RationalMadman
I recommend NordVPN.
Are you a VPN salesman?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Public-Choice
What exactly is this thread about if it isn't about VPNs? What's your solution?
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@RationalMadman
What's your solution?
Not joining the partnership and keeping the internet the way it was before 2016. Almost completely uncensored.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Public-Choice
I'd say good luck with that but you already admitted you use a VPN.
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@RationalMadman
Well, I barely use it. I haven't actually used it since 2016 or so. I already know the NSA has all the information they could possibly desire about me through my ownership of a smartphone that tracks my location 24/7 and listens to my conversations without my consent, so you kinda wonder what the point of a VPN would be with such constant monitoring.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,053
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Internet has always been censored.
To put it simply: he who owns the media, imposes censorship on people who say things he doesnt like.

This happened on YouTube when lots of accounts got banned for saying things YouTube didnt like.
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
You forgot to drop your affiliate link for nord
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Best.Korea
Internet has always been censored.
To put it simply: he who owns the media, imposes censorship on people who say things he doesnt like
It actually used to be the wild west where information was more easily accessible and freely available. 

Now it is largely curated by billion dollar companies, but it hasn't always been that way. 
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@RationalMadman
Also, let's look at your solution for a second.

Most VPN providers are legally required to hand over their data to the government anyways. They are also required to follow whatever laws their presiding government has about the internet.

The gross majority of these VPN providers are in the United States or somewhere in Europe. 

NordVPN (your favorite) is under the jurisdiction of Panama. Panama has an agreement with the United States to hand over your data. The country of Panama also has extremely strict internet Censorship laws. Moreover, Panama has an extradition treaty with the United States, so your registration data, your payment data, and other personal details they have on file about you is completely open to the USIC.

Malaysia, while a very strict country, doesn't actually have any extradition agreements with any other governments. They are not required to turn over anything to the United States if asked. Moreover, Malaysia has not censored anything on the internet.

However, this assumes that VPNs are not crackable. The fact of the matter is, they are.

The NSA and Russian Intelligence have already cracked AES encryption. They created scripts that instantly unlock it. This was back in 2013. So they don't really provide much protection anyways.

That isn't even to mention the fact that VPNs still require the user to enter a website somewhere, and those websites are likely owned by the U.S. somewhere, so once you log into Facebook on your VPN, they put in the tracking cookie and track your whole experience on there and elsewhere from your browser even with the VPN. They know it's you because you logged on.

This also assumes the VPN is not leaking, and your browser is one of those privacy browsers that don't accept cookies or any JavaScript scripts or other things.

There's so fucking many ways to hack a VPN that they are really useless.
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
So we have western countries who value free speech and corporations and totalitarian regimes such as China and Russia who do not.

The problem is that western countries are reluctant to propagandize their own citizens. 

So how would you mitigate the effects of groups like ISIS radicalizing people into becoming bombs that can go off in any crowded family event, mitigate the Russian and Chinese propaganda that seeks to divide Americans so their governments become distracted by internal as opposed to external fights, this weakening national security.

If you think the threats to national security and safety are worth accepting for the most extreme versions of free speech, I am inclined to side with you, but most people don't want to live in that sort of world.

So how do you navigate having an environment of free expression and speech, while protecting it from bad actors such as terrorist organizations, and totalitarian regimes as well as corporations. 
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Public-Choice

Most VPN providers are legally required to hand over their data to the government anyways. They are also required to follow whatever laws their presiding government has about the internet.
While true some companies such as nord VPN have their technology structured in such a way that if they handed over everything they have, they still would not be able to link anything to you. 

PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
Bruh, you are too paranoid. You would have to be a legitimate national security threat for a government to go through so much trouble to hack a VPN to find you. 

You could probably do live streams of murdering babies and the United States government would refrain from using it's resources to crack nord VPN. 
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Public-Choice
  • Seems like a very generic, freedom-of-speech affirming, non-binding resolution.
  • No organization seems to be formed or funding spent, so what is the censorship committee you are talking about?  Where does it meet?  How is it funded?  What is its mission?
  • What does the World Economic Forum have to do with this document?

Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
they still would not be able to link anything to you.
Yeah but what does that matter? We have people rotting in a jail cell right now because the FBI said they were violent at a protest. No trial. No scheduled trial. No bail. Just endlessly detained.

We had a sitting President impeached on a completely fabricated intelligence report on Russian Interference.

We have banks denying people their life savings and credit card companies shutting down credit cards over SUSPECTED (i.e. unproven) terrorism because of their political beliefs.

So the fact that they know your email, your payment info, and that you use a VPN is more than enough for the government to destroy your life and detain you indefinitely should VPNs be considered a "reasonable suspicion" for terrorism.

They can drain your bank account with "civil asset forfeiture" and then shut down your accounts. They can revoke your payment method completely, and they can also completely purge you from social media because they have your email and your full legal name. This all comes from just the sign up info and payment info.

So, that is more than enough right now to destroy your life. And they haven't even gotten to your internet history yet.
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@oromagi
Did you read what I posted or nah?

It affirms censorship of local governments while saying censorship is bad. They denounce Russia and then say "but we want to censor whatever we want."

That isn't affirming rights. That is doubletalk.
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Wylted
Just to be clear. I am not absolving anyone of any actions here. I am merely showing that our government and our financial and internet institutions have long abandoned the Bill of Rights. 

The people they banned could have been actual terrorists. But unless that is proven in a court of law, then what is going on is a serious affront to our rights.

That used to be the standard. The government and other organizations had to PROVE you were doing something wrong in a trial by jury before they took all your shit and completely removed you from society. It was one of the checks and balances against totalitarianism.

I am not saying these people didn't do what the government said they did. What I am saying, though, is that many people haven't and have had their things taken from them through these Patriot Act style laws and they never really got restitution without suing the government for 10 or 20 years first 

This is very alarming and totalitarian stuff going on right now. Detaining people indefinitely without a trial or even public statements of their crimes and also draining their bank accounts upon suspicion alone and getting companies to deny them service are gross human rights abuses. Most of the people targeted did nothing more than support a political candidate or happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

It isn't like they are all Dylan Murphy or some crazed terrorist. Many are falsely accused. But SOME aren't. Either way, without a trial it doesn't matter anyways because the government gets to do whatever it wants without any consequences.
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Public-Choice
I was pursuing a couple of different insurance licenses and I can tell you what the government requires of banks is pure bullshit. Like I could have been held liable if I opened an account for a member of ISIS if there was even a hint that they were connected to the organization. 

My thought process was, it's none of the banks business, that is for law enforcement but the law disagrees.  

You have 2 different types of laws when it comes to insurance banking

1. The laws that benefit the government such as ones where if I allow a Russian national who was sanctioned by the US to open an account then I will go to prison.

2. The laws that benefit the banks/insurance such as the law of indemnity that only allows an insured to be covered for whatever some asshole says their stuff is worth and no more. 

There is no 3rd type of law that helps the consumer, you just have to depend on state officials to have your best interests at heart, which they don't

So it's a very precarious position to be in and if the government is ran by leftists, they really can find banks billions if they start politicizing designations of terrorist groups
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Well, if Republicans run the country they'd do it too. They're just as trigger happy as leftists, only with different groups.

I think the government should be forced to indict you and win the court case before they can touch anything you own. That is a right that keeps tyranny in check.

I understand the process of an arrest before the court case, but your assets should not be frozen. You can be arrested if your crime can be proven in court, and I think that, if you don't get tried within a week of the arrest then you are free to go.

We have so many people sitting in jail for months or even years awaiting a trial. They haven't been convicted of anything yet. That could be an innocent person who is sitting there. One week until the trial starts. If they can't do it, then so be it.

Besides, in the old days people armed themselves and defended each other from psychos. That sense of community was a much better check on crime than police.
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Public-Choice
I think the government should be forced to indict you and win the court case before they can touch anything you own. That is a right that keeps tyranny in check.

I agree the have confiscated too much property without due process, particularly in suspected drug cases. 
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,053
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
The government always ends up limiting speech and violating privacy.

Who will keep the government in check? Another government? Brainwashed masses?
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Public-Choice
-->@oromagi
Did you read what I posted or nah?
  • Yes and now I'm wondering if this is just another one of your paranoid conspiracy theories with zero evidence
  • Why are you dodging my questions?
    • QUESTION 1:  What committee are you talking about?
    • QUESTION 2:  What doe the WEF have to do with this statement?
It affirms censorship of local governments while saying censorship is bad. They denounce Russia and then say "but we want to censor whatever we want."
  • Here is the entire text of the document.  Please show exactly where this document affirms censorship.
  • Russia is all about censorship.  Russia is not mentioned in this document but authoritarian censorship is condemned.
    • Are you for or against censorship by authoritarian govts?


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
A Declaration for the Future of the Internet

We are united by a belief in the potential of digital technologies to promote connectivity, democracy, peace, the rule of law, sustainable development, and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. As we increasingly work, communicate, connect, engage, learn, and enjoy leisure time using digital technologies, our reliance on an open, free, global, interoperable, reliable, and secure Internet will continue to grow. Yet we are also aware of the risks inherent in that reliance and the challenges we face.

We call for a new Declaration for the Future of the Internet that includes all partners who actively support a future for the Internet that is an open, free, global, interoperable, reliable, and secure. We further affirm our commitment to protecting and respecting human rights online and across the digital ecosystem. Partners in this Declaration intend to work toward an environment that reinforces our democratic systems and promotes active participation of every citizen in democratic processes, secures and protects individuals’ privacy, maintains secure and reliable connectivity, resists efforts to splinter the global Internet, and promotes a free and competitive global economy. Partners in this Declaration invite other partners who share this vision to join us in working together, with civil society and other stakeholders, to affirm guiding principles for our role in the future of the global Internet.

Reclaiming the Promise of the Internet

The immense promise that accompanied the development of the Internet stemmed from its design: it is an open “network of networks”, a single interconnected communications system for all of humanity. The stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems have, from the beginning, been governed by a multistakeholder approach to avoid Internet fragmentation, which continues to be an essential part of our vision. For business, entrepreneurs, and the innovation ecosystem as a whole, interconnection promises better access to customers and fairer competition; for artists and creators, new audiences; for everyone, unfettered access to knowledge. With the creation of the Internet came a swell in innovation, vibrant communication, increased cross-border data flows, and market growth—as well as the invention of new digital products and services that now permeate every aspect of our daily lives.

Over the last two decades, however, we have witnessed serious challenges to this vision emerge. Access to the open Internet is limited by some authoritarian governments and online platforms and digital tools are increasingly used to repress freedom of expression and deny other human rights and fundamental freedoms. State-sponsored or condoned malicious behavior is on the rise, including the spread of disinformation and cybercrimes such as ransomware, affecting the security and the resilience of critical infrastructure while holding at risk vital public and private assets. At the same time, countries have erected firewalls and taken other technical measures, such as Internet shutdowns, to restrict access to journalism, information, and services, in ways that are contrary to international human rights commitments and obligations. Concerted or independent actions of some governments and private actors have sought to abuse the openness of Internet governance and related processes to advance a closed vision. Moreover, the once decentralized Internet economy has become highly concentrated and many people have legitimate concerns about their privacy and the quantity and security of personal data collected and stored online. 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 and foreign malign activity is used to sow division and conflict between individuals or groups in society, undermining respect for and protection of human rights and democratic institutions.

Our Vision

We believe we should meet these challenges by working towards a shared vision for the future of the Internet that recommits governments and relevant authorities to defending human rights and fostering equitable economic prosperity. We intend to ensure that the use of digital technologies reinforces, not weakens, democracy and respect for human rights; offers opportunities for innovation in the digital ecosystem, including businesses large and small; and, maintains connections between our societies. We intend to work together to protect and fortify the multistakeholder system of Internet governance and to maintain a high level of security, privacy protection, stability and resilience of the technical infrastructure of the Internet.

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.

The Internet should operate as a single, decentralized network of networks – with global reach and governed through the multistakeholder approach, whereby governments and relevant authorities partner with academics, civil society, the private sector, technical community and others. Digital technologies reliant on the Internet, will yield the greatest dividends when they operate as an open, free, global, interoperable, reliable, and secure systems. Digital technologies should be produced, used, and governed in ways that enable trustworthy, free, and fair commerce; avoid unfair discrimination between, and ensure effective choice for, individual users; foster fair competition and encourage innovation; promote and protect human rights; and, foster societies where:

  • Human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the well-being of all individuals are protected and promoted;
  • All can connect to the Internet, no matter where they are located, including through increased access, affordability, and digital skills;
  • Individuals and businesses can trust the safety and the confidentiality of the digital technologies they use W and that their privacy is protected;
  • Businesses of all sizes can innovate, compete, and thrive on their merits in a fair and competitive ecosystem;
  • Infrastructure is designed to be secure, interoperable, reliable, and sustainable;
  • Technology is used to promote pluralism and freedom of expression, sustainability, inclusive economic growth, and the fight against global climate change.
Principles to promote this Vision

The partners in this Declaration intend to uphold a range of key principles, set out below, regarding the Internet and digital technologies; to promote these principles within existing multilateral and multistakeholder fora; to translate these principles into concrete policies and actions; and, work together to promote this vision globally, while respecting each other’s regulatory autonomy within our own jurisdictions and in accordance with our respective domestic laws and international legal obligations. These principles are not legally binding but should rather be used as a reference for public policy makers, as well as citizens, businesses, and civil society organizations.


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

  • Dedicate ourselves, in conducting and executing our respective domestic authorities, to respect human rights, including as reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the principles of the rule of law, legitimate purpose, non-arbitrariness, effective oversight, and transparency, both online and offline, and call upon others to do the same.
  • Promote online safety and continue to strengthen our work to combat violence online, including sexual and gender-based violence as well as child sexual exploitation, to make the Internet a safe and secure place for everyone, particularly women, children, and young people.
  • Promote safe and equitable use of the Internet for everyone, without discrimination based on sex, race, color, ethnic, national or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of an indigenous population, property, birth, disability, age, gender identity or sexual orientation.
  • Reaffirm our commitment that actions taken by governments, authorities, and digital services including online platforms to reduce illegal and harmful content and activities online be consistent with international human rights law, including the right to freedom of expression while encouraging diversity of opinion, and pluralism without fear of censorship, harassment, or intimidation.
  • Protect and respect human rights and fundamental freedoms across the digital ecosystem, while providing access to meaningful remedies for human rights violations and abuses, consistent with international human rights law. • Refrain from misusing or abusing the Internet or algorithmic tools or techniques for unlawful surveillance, oppression, and repression that do not align with international human rights principles, including developing social score cards or other mechanisms of domestic social control or pre-crime detention and arrest. A Global Internet
  • Refrain from government-imposed internet shutdowns or degrading domestic Internet access, either entirely or partially.
  • Refrain from blocking or degrading access to lawful content, services, and applications on the Internet, consistent with principles of Net Neutrality subject to applicable law, including international human rights law.
  • Promote our work to realize the benefits of data free flows with trust based on our shared values as like-minded, democratic, open and outward looking partners.
  • Promote cooperation in research and innovation and standard setting, encourage information sharing regarding security threats through relevant international fora, and reaffirm our commitment to the framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace. Inclusive and Affordable Access to the Internet • Promote affordable, inclusive, and reliable access to the Internet for individuals and businesses where they need it and support efforts to close digital divides around the world to ensure all people of the world are able to benefit from the digital transformation.
  • Support digital literacy, skills acquisition, and development so that individuals can overcome the digital divide, participate in the Internet safely, and realize the economic and social potential of the digital economy.
  • Foster greater exposure to diverse cultural and multilingual content, information, and news online. Exposure to diverse content online should contribute to pluralistic public discourse, foster greater social and digital inclusion within society, bolster resilience to disinformation and misinformation, and increase participation in democratic processes. Trust in the Digital Ecosystem
  • Work together to combat cybercrime, including cyber-enabled crime, and deter malicious cyber activity.
  • Ensure that government and relevant authorities’ access to personal data is based in law and conducted in accordance with international human rights law.
  • Protect individuals’ privacy, their personal data, the confidentiality of electronic communications and information on end-users’ electronic devices, consistent with the protection of public safety and applicable domestic and international law.
  • Promote the protection of consumers, in particular vulnerable consumers, from online scams and other unfair practices online and from dangerous and unsafe products sold online. • Promote and use trustworthy network infrastructure and services suppliers, relying on risk-based assessments that include technical and non-technical factors for network security.
  • Refrain from using the Internet to undermine the electoral infrastructure, elections and political processes, including through covert information manipulation campaigns.
  • Support a rules-based global digital economy which fosters trade and contestable and fair online markets so that firms and entrepreneurs can compete on their merits.
  • Cooperate to maximize the enabling effects of technology for combatting climate change and protecting the environment whilst reducing as much as possible the environmental footprint of the Internet and digital technologies. Multistakeholder Internet Governance
  • Protect and strengthen the multistakeholder system of Internet governance, including the development, deployment, and management of its main technical protocols and other related standards and protocols.
  • Refrain from undermining the technical infrastructure essential to the general availability and integrity of the Internet. We believe that the principles for the future of the Internet are universal in nature and as such we invite those who share this vision to affirm these principles and join us in the implementation of this vision. This Declaration takes into account, and expects to contribute to, existing processes in the UN system, G7, G20, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Trade Organization, and other relevant multilateral and multistakeholder fora, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Internet Governance Forum, and Freedom Online Coalition. We also welcome partnership with the many civil society organizations essential to promoting an open, free, global, interoperable, reliable, and secure Internet, and defending fundamental freedoms and human rights online. Partners in this Declaration intend to consult and work closely with stakeholders in carrying forward this vision. 



Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@oromagi
You don't see any red flags in any of that?
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Public-Choice
--->@oromagi
You don't see any red flags in any of that?
  • If I had I would not have described the document  as  a "very generic, freedom-of-speech affirming, non-binding resolution," now would I?
  • You're dodging so hard.  Why can't you just answer a simple direct question?
    • QUESTION 1:  What committee are you talking about?
    • QUESTION 2:  What doe the WEF have to do with this statement?
    • QUESTION 3: Please show exactly where this document affirms censorship.
    • QUESTION 4:  Are you for or against censorship by authoritarian govts?  Is Russia an authoritarian censor?


Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@oromagi
QUESTION 1: What committee are you talking about?
QUESTION 2: What doe the WEF have to do with this statement?
QUESTION 3: Please show exactly where this document affirms censorship.
QUESTION 4: Are you for or against censorship by authoritarian govts? Is Russia an authoritarian censor?
Answer 1:
The censorship Committee that is outlined in the declaration:

Today, the United States with more than 60 partners from around the globe launched the Declaration for the Future of the Internet.

This Declaration represents a political commitment among Declaration partners to advance a positive vision for the Internet and digital technologies.
i.e. the 60 member partners will all collude on it.

Answer 2:

The stakeholder ideology is straight from the WEF's playbook:
That is the core of stakeholder capitalism: it is a form of capitalism in which companies do not only optimize short-term profits for shareholders, but seek long term value creation, by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large.

The Declaration states:
Protect and strengthen the multi-stakeholder approach to governance that keeps the Internet running for the benefit of all.
That was my only connection to the WEF, that they took the idea of stakeholder capitalism and applied it to internet Censorship.

Answer 3:

I already cited it, but ai might as well cite it again:
In signing this Declaration, the United States and partners will work together to promote this vision and its principles globally, while respecting each other’s regulatory autonomy within our own jurisdictions and in accordance with our respective domestic laws and international legal obligations.
Respecting our own regulatory autonomy = censoring whatever we want.

Answer 4:

I am usually against it. I think censorship makes people stupider and more susceptible to things like a flat earth or Naziism or totalitarianism. We need herd immunity against ideas just as much as herd immunity against diseases. By exposing people to the dirty things in life, and allowing people to argue against it freely, the facts win out.

But when you censor things, the public has no idea what the other side really believes, and then they fall prey to stupid ideas or dangerous ideologies.

So censorship is dangerous to society.