7 ms·

The UN Risks Normalizing Internet Censorship

94 points by pantalaimon 3y ago

skilled 3y ago
https://archive.ph/ezYcP https://archive.ph/ezYcP
shmde 3y ago
"The United Nations’ main internet governance body will host its next international forum in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. In 2025, the UN may take its discussions on the future of an open internet to Russia." The opening line reads like an Onion article.
- morkalork 3y ago
  Right? The same Saudi Arabia where they jail people for Twitter posts?
  - Waterluvian 3y ago
    The same Saudi Arabia that beheads journalists.
    - harshreality 3y ago
      Judging Saudi Arabia is not that simple. I highly recommend this long-form part-article, part-interview of MBS, from the Atlantic. https://archive.ph/s6i5m https://archive.ph/s6i5m
      - southernplaces7 3y ago
        And how does the article discredit any criticism of Saudi Arabia's oppressiveness? Not only does it plainly state how badly free expression is crushed in the country, it also adds wonderful PR-friendly zingers like this about the country's de facto leader MBS: "He has also created a climate of fear unprecedented in Saudi history. Saudi Arabia has never been a free country. But even the most oppressive of MBS’s predecessors, his uncle King Faisal, never presided over an atmosphere like that of the present day, when it is widely believed that you place yourself in danger if you criticize the ruler or pay even a mild compliment to his enemies. MBS’s critics—not regicidal zealots or al‑Qaeda sympathizers, just ordinary people with independent thoughts about his reforms—have gone into exile. Some fear that if he keeps getting his way, the modernized Saudi Arabia will oppress in ways the old Saudi Arabia never imagined. Khalid al-Jabri, the exiled son of one of MBS’s most prominent critics, warned me that worse was yet to come: “When he’s King Mohammed, Crown Prince MBS is going to be remembered as an angel.” Yeah, sounds positively anarchic in its protections of free speech. Then again the UN has a long history of tacitly and sometimes openly kowtowing to the "social needs" of its more repressive members, who routinely bribe and browbeat their way through the organization towards more anti-liberal influence than many of them have any right to claim on the world stage. Just holding a conference like the one in this HN post in a country like the Kingdom is a grotesque joke
        harshreality 3y ago
        You can criticize MBS all you want. What I disagree with is criticism that fails to admit that the regime would very likely be even worse overall without MBS. How do you weigh MBS's substantial social reforms against his retaliation for personal criticism? This isn't a simple trade either, since a more socially repressive regime would still retaliate against critics, just maybe not Khashoggi, or not in the same discoverable way. I don't see MBS or his underlings assassinating Atlantic staff over that article. Do you? Are you aware that India just assassinated an Indian national in Canada? It's causing a diplomatic spat, but I don't see mass outrage over Murmu akin to outrage over MBS.
      - mptest 3y ago
        No, judging SA for dismembering a journalist is pretty fucking simple actually.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    Nothing has to ever make sense any more. Just last week at a major protest, people with “The LGBTQ community supports Palestine!” signs.
    - anon4242 3y ago
      Too bad Palestine doesn't support the LGBTQ community...
      - spondylosaurus 3y ago
        Gay couples can't married in Israel either.
        mrangle 3y ago
        LOL comment of the week.
        anon4242 3y ago
        Yeah, while that is technically true [0], the difference of being gay in Israel vs gay in Palestine seem to be more about, you know, a life and death situation [1]: > Gay Palestinians frequently seek refuge in Israel fearing for their lives, especially fearing death from members of their own families. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_State_of_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_State_of_Pa...
    - narrator 3y ago
      The thing they have in common is believing politicians that say that if said politicians can be given unlimited power, and can have every one of their crimes ignored, and are allowed to eliminate their political adversaries then they will solve all problems of LGBTQ, Palestinian, Jews, Israelis, and any other non white male minority you can think of through their exercise of that power. They are murky on the details except that they need more power. It's kind of a repeat of the 20th century if you ask me.
    - 3y ago
  - patrick451 3y ago
    Various countries in Europe are doing the same thing [1,2,3]. Just recently, Britain has been threatening to jail people if they show support for the wrong organizations. Free speech is dead in the vast majority of the world. Casting shade on the "non-west" like Saudi Arabia as though they are alone in this guilt is ignorant at best. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42164853 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42164853 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/20/austria.thefarright https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/20/austria.thefar... [3] https://jacobin.com/2022/09/queen-death-monarchy-censorship-free-speech https://jacobin.com/2022/09/queen-death-monarchy-censorship-... [4] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/foreign/uk-threatens-arrests-hamas-supporters-pro-palestine-protesters https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/foreign/uk-threate...
    - Larrikin 3y ago
      How about whatabouting while addressing the dismemberment of a journalist?
      - patrick451 3y ago
        Sure. The United States commits extra judicial killings all the time, including of it's own citizens. They have tortured countless innocent people at various dark sites. There is absolutely nothing about the west which is morally superior. The fact that they try to hide these acts or justify them through sophistry makes the west even worse.
        spondylosaurus 3y ago
        Remember a few years back when cops kept roughing up journalists at anti-brutality protests? There was that one guy who lost an eye to a rubber bullet.
    - PradeetPatel 3y ago
      Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences. It's crucial to understand when to voice one's views both in a public and private setting.
deadeye 3y ago
Is it bad that after reading the sub-title I thought they were talking about Canada?
Timber-6539 3y ago
Wired journalists also probably thought that homophobia was going to bring about the end of the world when Qatar hosted last year's World Cup.
datameta 3y ago
[flagged]
- lakomen 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - anon4242 3y ago
    They are talking about the security council, not the UN. The way members in the security council holds a veto to every decision paralyzes it. You should automatically lose your veto/seat in the council if you invade another country.
    - the-dude 3y ago
      So no US and no USSR then. Who is left?
      - anon4242 3y ago
        Last I looked there were more than two members in the council, and also USSR hasn't been a member since 1991 if I recall correctly. Anyway here's the current list for you convenience: https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/current-members https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/current-members If the bylaws of the security council contained the risk of exclusion or at the very least loss of veto, I think both the US and Russia would more carefully contemplate the cost of the invasions they are guilty of.
        the-dude 3y ago
        So, UK out as well, China out too. Leaves the French. They did invade Russia ...
    - jowea 3y ago
      The already limited authority of the UNSC is almost meaningless without the consensus of the great powers. An UNSC with only (pro-)Western powers sanctioned US intervention in the Korean War, did it make any difference beyond the use of the UN flag?
RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
> between censorship-minded countries and those who support an open internet The problem is that there really aren’t countries who are pro speech and support an open internet. The countries are all just pro-speech that they support.
jowea 3y ago
I understand the concern, but why we act like this sort of stuff isn't just at the worst case a strongly worded letter just everyone knows an UN General Assembly resolution is? What can the IGF or the ITO actually do?
CatWChainsaw 3y ago
Between blatant authoritarian regimes wanting full access and control, the US data hoovering which is definitely greater than a decade old, and the EU trying to push through a measure to get around encryption for the purpose of finding CSAM, there will be no bastions of privacy or anonymity within the decade.
mrangle 3y ago
The irony is that speech restrictions are most likely to harm the common people that are advocating for them, over the long term. If they are advocating for them because and while they are vulnerable, then it stands to reason that less vulnerable people will eventually dictate how the laws are applied. The same officials who think that "whataboutism", aka the call to ignore unequal application of the law, is a positive argument are the same officials that want censorship. That isn't a coincidence, and the same resultant risk to the population is shared between the two strategies.

94 points by pantalaimon 3y ago

https://archive.ph/ezYcP https://archive.ph/ezYcP

"The United Nations’ main internet governance body will host its next international forum in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. In 2025, the UN may take its discussions on the future of an open internet to Russia." The opening line reads like an Onion article.

morkalork 3y ago
Right? The same Saudi Arabia where they jail people for Twitter posts?
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  The same Saudi Arabia that beheads journalists.
  - harshreality 3y ago
    Judging Saudi Arabia is not that simple. I highly recommend this long-form part-article, part-interview of MBS, from the Atlantic. https://archive.ph/s6i5m https://archive.ph/s6i5m
    - southernplaces7 3y ago
      And how does the article discredit any criticism of Saudi Arabia's oppressiveness? Not only does it plainly state how badly free expression is crushed in the country, it also adds wonderful PR-friendly zingers like this about the country's de facto leader MBS: "He has also created a climate of fear unprecedented in Saudi history. Saudi Arabia has never been a free country. But even the most oppressive of MBS’s predecessors, his uncle King Faisal, never presided over an atmosphere like that of the present day, when it is widely believed that you place yourself in danger if you criticize the ruler or pay even a mild compliment to his enemies. MBS’s critics—not regicidal zealots or al‑Qaeda sympathizers, just ordinary people with independent thoughts about his reforms—have gone into exile. Some fear that if he keeps getting his way, the modernized Saudi Arabia will oppress in ways the old Saudi Arabia never imagined. Khalid al-Jabri, the exiled son of one of MBS’s most prominent critics, warned me that worse was yet to come: “When he’s King Mohammed, Crown Prince MBS is going to be remembered as an angel.” Yeah, sounds positively anarchic in its protections of free speech. Then again the UN has a long history of tacitly and sometimes openly kowtowing to the "social needs" of its more repressive members, who routinely bribe and browbeat their way through the organization towards more anti-liberal influence than many of them have any right to claim on the world stage. Just holding a conference like the one in this HN post in a country like the Kingdom is a grotesque joke
      - harshreality 3y ago
        You can criticize MBS all you want. What I disagree with is criticism that fails to admit that the regime would very likely be even worse overall without MBS. How do you weigh MBS's substantial social reforms against his retaliation for personal criticism? This isn't a simple trade either, since a more socially repressive regime would still retaliate against critics, just maybe not Khashoggi, or not in the same discoverable way. I don't see MBS or his underlings assassinating Atlantic staff over that article. Do you? Are you aware that India just assassinated an Indian national in Canada? It's causing a diplomatic spat, but I don't see mass outrage over Murmu akin to outrage over MBS.
    - mptest 3y ago
      No, judging SA for dismembering a journalist is pretty fucking simple actually.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  Nothing has to ever make sense any more. Just last week at a major protest, people with “The LGBTQ community supports Palestine!” signs.
  - anon4242 3y ago
    Too bad Palestine doesn't support the LGBTQ community...
    - spondylosaurus 3y ago
      Gay couples can't married in Israel either.
      - mrangle 3y ago
        LOL comment of the week.
      - anon4242 3y ago
        Yeah, while that is technically true [0], the difference of being gay in Israel vs gay in Palestine seem to be more about, you know, a life and death situation [1]: > Gay Palestinians frequently seek refuge in Israel fearing for their lives, especially fearing death from members of their own families. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_State_of_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_State_of_Pa...
  - narrator 3y ago
    The thing they have in common is believing politicians that say that if said politicians can be given unlimited power, and can have every one of their crimes ignored, and are allowed to eliminate their political adversaries then they will solve all problems of LGBTQ, Palestinian, Jews, Israelis, and any other non white male minority you can think of through their exercise of that power. They are murky on the details except that they need more power. It's kind of a repeat of the 20th century if you ask me.
  - 3y ago
- patrick451 3y ago
  Various countries in Europe are doing the same thing [1,2,3]. Just recently, Britain has been threatening to jail people if they show support for the wrong organizations. Free speech is dead in the vast majority of the world. Casting shade on the "non-west" like Saudi Arabia as though they are alone in this guilt is ignorant at best. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42164853 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42164853 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/20/austria.thefarright https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/20/austria.thefar... [3] https://jacobin.com/2022/09/queen-death-monarchy-censorship-free-speech https://jacobin.com/2022/09/queen-death-monarchy-censorship-... [4] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/foreign/uk-threatens-arrests-hamas-supporters-pro-palestine-protesters https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/foreign/uk-threate...
  - Larrikin 3y ago
    How about whatabouting while addressing the dismemberment of a journalist?
    - patrick451 3y ago
      Sure. The United States commits extra judicial killings all the time, including of it's own citizens. They have tortured countless innocent people at various dark sites. There is absolutely nothing about the west which is morally superior. The fact that they try to hide these acts or justify them through sophistry makes the west even worse.
      - spondylosaurus 3y ago
        Remember a few years back when cops kept roughing up journalists at anti-brutality protests? There was that one guy who lost an eye to a rubber bullet.
  - PradeetPatel 3y ago
    Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences. It's crucial to understand when to voice one's views both in a public and private setting.

deadeye 3y ago

Is it bad that after reading the sub-title I thought they were talking about Canada?

Timber-6539 3y ago

Wired journalists also probably thought that homophobia was going to bring about the end of the world when Qatar hosted last year's World Cup.

datameta 3y ago

[flagged]

lakomen 3y ago
[flagged]
- anon4242 3y ago
  They are talking about the security council, not the UN. The way members in the security council holds a veto to every decision paralyzes it. You should automatically lose your veto/seat in the council if you invade another country.
  - the-dude 3y ago
    So no US and no USSR then. Who is left?
    - anon4242 3y ago
      Last I looked there were more than two members in the council, and also USSR hasn't been a member since 1991 if I recall correctly. Anyway here's the current list for you convenience: https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/current-members https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/current-members If the bylaws of the security council contained the risk of exclusion or at the very least loss of veto, I think both the US and Russia would more carefully contemplate the cost of the invasions they are guilty of.
      - the-dude 3y ago
        So, UK out as well, China out too. Leaves the French. They did invade Russia ...
  - jowea 3y ago
    The already limited authority of the UNSC is almost meaningless without the consensus of the great powers. An UNSC with only (pro-)Western powers sanctioned US intervention in the Korean War, did it make any difference beyond the use of the UN flag?

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago

> between censorship-minded countries and those who support an open internet The problem is that there really aren’t countries who are pro speech and support an open internet. The countries are all just pro-speech that they support.

jowea 3y ago

I understand the concern, but why we act like this sort of stuff isn't just at the worst case a strongly worded letter just everyone knows an UN General Assembly resolution is? What can the IGF or the ITO actually do?

CatWChainsaw 3y ago

Between blatant authoritarian regimes wanting full access and control, the US data hoovering which is definitely greater than a decade old, and the EU trying to push through a measure to get around encryption for the purpose of finding CSAM, there will be no bastions of privacy or anonymity within the decade.

mrangle 3y ago

The irony is that speech restrictions are most likely to harm the common people that are advocating for them, over the long term. If they are advocating for them because and while they are vulnerable, then it stands to reason that less vulnerable people will eventually dictate how the laws are applied. The same officials who think that "whataboutism", aka the call to ignore unequal application of the law, is a positive argument are the same officials that want censorship. That isn't a coincidence, and the same resultant risk to the population is shared between the two strategies.