The US Just Joined A Global Internet Censorship Committee

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.

NordVPN (your favorite) is under the jurisdiction of Panama. Panama has an agreement with the United States to hand over your data. 

There's so fucking many ways to hack a VPN that they are really useless.

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.

Until the US outlaws VPN use there is absolutely no grounds to do this

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.

Source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/klaus-schwab-on-what-is-stakeholder-capitalism-history-relevance/

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.

• So- condemning authoritarian censorship while re-affirming their commitment to freedom of expression as a human right.
  

In fact, why are you on the Internet or worried?

China censors searches for 'Hu Jintao,' the former president removed from congress

By RFA Mandarin and Cantonese services

2022.10.24

Chinese government censors on Monday limited keyword searches for former president Hu Jintao, who was unceremoniously removed from the ruling Chinese Communist Party congress over the weekend.

Seated at the leaders’ rostrum on Saturday, a confused-looking Hu was physically lifted from his seat by a security guard and firmly escorted past leader Xi Jinping, whom he tried to talk to, and out of the hall.

The incident prompted rampant speculation that Hu's removal was a political statement from Xi and to show the total destruction of Hu's political faction, which is closely linked to the Communist Party Youth League. Xi was later voted in for an unprecedented third five-year term in office, making him the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao Zedong.  

No discussion of the incident was allowed on Chinese social media platforms after the event, while keyword searches for "Hu Jintao," "Granddad Hu" and "Xi Jinping" were blocked, or only showing very limited results.

A keyword search for "Hu Jintao" on the Weibo social media platform on Monday resulted in just a couple of generic posts from the party congress, which ran from Oct. 16-22 in Beijing, with comments turned off on both.

State news agency Xinhua later tweeted that Hu had turned up to the session despite feeling "unwell," and was escorted out due to his health.

Some messages managed to get around censors for a brief time by referring to Hu as a "former principal" who had been sent out by the current principal.

Clues from photos

Ming Chu-cheng, professor of political science at National Taiwan University, said important clues could be found in news photos of the incident, broadcast by the Spanish-language channel ABC Internacional.

"In the first photo, Hu Jintao is about to open the file [on the desk in front of him], but [outgoing Politburo standing committee member] Li Zhanshu stops him," Ming told a recent discussion forum in Taiwan.

"In the second photo, Li Zhanshu takes the file away from Hu Jintao, who tries to take it back, but Li won't let him."

In the third and fourth photos, party leader Xi Jinping indicates to the security guard that Hu should leave. Hu is escorted out, but tries to talk to Xi on his way out.

"Xi doesn't give him the time of day," Ming said, saying that Xi's behavior was rude according to Chinese culture's veneration of elders. "The leaders ... on either side stay expressionless throughout ... they didn't dare show any expression due to Xi's power."

But he added: "I think it was likely an emergency of some kind [rather than a premeditated gesture target the Youth League faction]."

Former Chinese president Hu Jintao leaves his seat next to Chinese President Xi Jinping during the closing ceremony of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China October 22, 2022. REUTERS/Tingshu Wang

Wu Guoguang, a senior research scholar at the Center for China Economics and Institutions at Stanford University, agreed that Xi's treatment of Hu was disrespectful.

"Regardless of why he was leaving, the least the leaders on the rostrum could do would be to at least get up, shake hands, and say goodbye," Wu said. "There was a total absence of that etiquette."

"Why do former leaders come at all? Generally, as a platform for them to show unity with the current leader, but ... the [treatment] of Hu Jintao shattered those illusions," he said.

U.S.-based popular science writer Fang Zhouzi said via Twitter that the man who escorted Hu outside the hall was Xi's personal bodyguard.

The man following along behind was named by the Associated Press's Beijing correspondent Dake Kang as Kong Shaoxun, deputy director of the Communist Party's general office, which is in charge of practical arrangements, housing and other services for leaders past and present.

Japanese journalist Akio Yaita, Taipei bureau chief for the Sankei Shimbun, said rumors of a coup attempt were far-fetched. "It's more likely that Hu Jintao had an opinion on the ... amendments to the party charter," he said. "Hu's departure showed that Xi Jinping rules over everything, but also made public contradictions within the party."

After Hu left, the party charter was amended to enshrine Xi Jinping as a "core" party leader.

Maybe try TOR at times if you are that concerned.

-->@oromagi

And when Facebook censors information and the mainstream press say it is lies and Google deletes articles from their blogger blogs they host and other stuff, that doesn't bother you?

Government can't force Facebook to publish a lie any more than it can force Fox News to publish the truth.

So, no committee just a declaration and a shared vision

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.

So, no connection to WEF.

Internet users, for example, are clearly stakeholders in this context.

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.

In other words, no signatory has to change any law they don't feel like changing.

Globally, we are witnessing 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. At the same time, millions of people still face barriers to access and cybersecurity risks and threats undermine the trust and reliability of networks.

Globally, we are witnessing 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. At the same time, millions of people still face barriers to access and cybersecurity risks and threats undermine the trust and reliability of networks.

So they basically denounced censorship by China and Russia and then said they can censor whatever they want. This is a censorship partnership. That is all this is.

that's why RT is now banned, because "censorship bad"

And I don't even really trust RT any more than any other news outlet.

-->@oromagi

So, no committee just a declaration and a shared vision

From the declaration:

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.

They will all WORK TOGETHER on this. If committee isn't the right word here then what word do you suggest???

So, no connection to WEF.

Where did I say it was connected to the WEF? I said they took the idea of stakeholder capitalism and applied it. I was EXPLAINING WHAT THAT MEANT.

What is Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance? The term multistakeholder governance (MSG) came into use in the Internet arena around 2004. Markus Kummer, who served as executive coordinator for the IGF Secretariat, describes MSG as a vehicle “for policy dialogue where all stakeholders took part on an equal footing” via a process that is open, inclusive and transparent (Kummer, 2013). He also said that “While multistakeholder participation in the World Group on Inter - net Governance (WGIG 1 ) and IGF meant and means that all stakeholders participate on an equal footing, it is also clear that in most organizations, whether intergovernmental or not, some structures are in place to facilitate decision-making processes” (Kummer, 2013). Lawrence E Strickling, Administrator of the National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) in the U.S. Depart - ment of Commerce, adds in an April 2013 blog post, “consensus-based decision making” to the MSG definition (Strickling, 2013): “The Internet has flourished because of the approach taken from its in - fancy to resolve technical and policy questions. Known as the multi-stake - holder process, it involves the full involvement of all stakeholders, consensus-based decision-making and operating in an open, trans - parent and accountable manner. [Emphasis added.] The multi-stake - holder model has promoted freedom of expression, both online and off. It has ensured the Internet is a robust, open platform for innovation, investment, economic growth and the creation of wealth throughout the world, including in developing countries.” These descriptions do not specify principles for the creation of multi-stakeholder organizations except to say that they should be open, transparent and inclusive. They don’t specify how business is to be conducted except to say that “stakeholders participate on an equal footing”

INTERNET MULTISTAKEHOLDER GOVERNANCE is "participation is a specific governance approach whereby relevant stakeholders participate in the collective shaping of evolutions and uses of the Internet.   In 2005, the Working Group in Internet Governance (WGIG), set up by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), defined Internet governance as: 'development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet'. This is not identical to undifferentiated public participation in Internet issues. Instead, the concept of 'multistakeholder' signals specifically the distinct clusters of interests involved in any given digital issue and how these interests can be aggregated into decisions towards an Internet for the general interest, rather than being captured by a single power center.  The general principle of participation in decision-making that impacts on the lives of individuals has been part of the Internet from its outset, accounting for much of its success.   It recognizes the value of multistakeholder participation, incorporating users and a user-centric perspective as well as all other actors critical to developing, using and governing the Internet across a range of levels. The other principles are enriched by the multistakeholder participation principle, because it states that everyone should have a stake in the future of the Internet.

It is possible to define a number of broad categories of stakeholders in the Internet, with subgroups as well: State, businesses and industries, non-governmental actors, civil society, international governmental organization, research actors, individuals, and others. Each of these categories has more or less unique stakes in the future of the Internet, but there are also areas of great overlap and interdependence. For instance, some NGOs, are likely to prioritize the promotion of human rights; meanwhile parliaments are primary actors in defining laws to protect these rights. Still other stakeholders are key to shaping rights online, such as search engine providers, and Internet Service Providers (ISPs).  Individuals also have particular roles to play in respecting, promoting and protecting rights."

Do you purposely misinterpret people to win debates? If so that is really dishonest.

In other words, no signatory has to change any law they don't feel like changing.

So then, by your own admission, this resolution allows them to keep censoring content they are already censoring anyways.

But that isn't what it says. It says they reserve the right to implement this partnership however they want, and they are therefore free to censor other people.

• False.  
  
• 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.
  

So they basically denounced censorship by China and Russia

and then said they can censor whatever they want.

This is a censorship partnership. That is all this is.

-->@3RU7AL

that's why RT is now banned, because "censorship bad"

Exactly lol. The inconsistency of this is astounding. And I don't even really trust RT any more than any other news outlet. I am just showing how nutso this resolution is. "We hate censorship! But we are allowed to censor whatever we want and have our own laws and work together to keep it that way!"

Your interpretation of this declaration's intent seems baseless and paranoid.

-->@oromagi

Your interpretation of this declaration's intent seems baseless and paranoid.

any mention of "disinformation" is a red flag

That's quite an extreme point of view.  I don't know how one tells the truth on the internet without mentioning disinformation on a pretty regular basis.  Do democracies have an obligation to inform their citizens and if the answer is yes, how does one keep people informed without separating the facts of public policy from lies?

The US does not censor RT:

https://youtu.be/nrXlY6gzTTM