UN General Assembly adopts record number of resolutions on internet governance and policy [which contains this part:]
>Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
>For the past several years, UNGA has adopted a resolution addressing Nazism, racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance. Naturally, the internet has become more prominent in such debates as digital technologies provide tools through which intolerance can be spread and counterbalanced. In recent years, this resolution took a relatively balanced approach in how it dealt with the online aspects of the issue. It previously included text recognising the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including on the internet, can play in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the need to promote the use of ICTs and the internet to contribute to the fight against racism, and called on civil society, states and other stakeholders to use all opportunities, including through the internet and social media, “to counter, in accordance with international human rights law, the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred and to promote the values of equality, non-discrimination, diversity and democracy.” The resolution had also expressed concern about the increased use of the internet to promote and disseminate racism, racial hatred, xenophobia, racial discrimination and related intolerance, and specifically reminded states of their obligations under Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in calling on them to counter the dissemination of racism online.
>The 2018 resolution took a dramatic turn. The number of paragraphs addressing internet issues almost tripled, with nearly all of them highlighting the negative contribution of the internet to neo-Nazi, violent nationalist, xenophobic or racist speech, organising and indoctrinisation. The preamble of the resolution includes the addition of these four new paragraphs:
>- Concerned by the use of Internet platforms by groups that propagate hate to plan, fundraise and circulate information about public events aimed at promoting racism, xenophobia and related intolerance, such as rallies, demonstrations and acts of violence,
>- Seriously concerned that neo-Nazi groups have increasingly targeted susceptible individuals, mainly children and youth, by means of specifically tailored websites with the aim of their indoctrination,
>- Noting with concern that the variation in national standards prohibiting hate speech may provide safe havens for neo-Nazi, violent nationalist, xenophobic or racist speech owing to the fact that many neo-Nazi and relevant extremist groups of a racist or xenophobic character operate transnationally by relying on Internet service providers or social media platforms,
>- Expressing its concern about the use of digital technologies by neo-Nazis and other hate groups to disseminate their ideology, while recognizing that digital technologies are of great importance for the enjoyment of human rights and for combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
>In the operative section, the resolution expresses concern regarding the use of the internet and social media by neo-Nazi groups to amplify their hate-filled messages and recruit new members across borders, and as well as at the increase in instances of groups and individuals espousing ideologies of hatred through the internet to disseminate ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, organise meetings and violent protests, fundraise and engage in other activities.
>There is no denying the fact that the internet can contribute to the spread of racist, xenophobic and neo-Nazi ideology and that it can enable individuals and groups to organise on the basis of such beliefs. However, by pointing to the negative role of the internet, without a single new reference to international human rights law, the new text in the 2018 resolution can easily be used to justify, if not encourage, undue restrictions on human rights online. Already, internet service providers and social media platforms face considerable pressure to take down content, delete accounts, and gain access to personal data, either through government requests, intimidation or self-regulation.
>There are plenty of UN resolutions concerning human rights online that could have been drawn on in this resolution, which could have both raised concern about the utilisation of the internet to propagate racism, while taking a human rights-based approach to addressing this issue, including by calling on the private sector to respect human rights in line with its responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. While the resolution does correctly note that the internet can play a positive role combating racism, xenophobia and neo-Nazism, it misses the mark in providing safeguards to ensure that the internet can actually be used for this purpose.
>This annual resolution led by the Russian Federation was once again adopted by a vote. At this latest UNGA session, the vote was 129 states in favour and two against, with 54 abstaining. As was the case in the past three years, the US and Ukraine were the sole “no” votes.
https://www.apc.org/en/node/35253 (at the bottom)
They're always guilty of what they accuse others of. Where's the UN resolution to abolish radical marxists from schools? They talk about some phantom boogeyman intent on indoctrinating the youf, when they have indoctrination factories doing literally that.
>>1986 They are a bunch of lying hypocrites. Almost everything they accuse us of are their doing and worse, that tactic has worked really well for them.
>>1986 >Where's the UN resolution to abolish radical marxists from schools?
Or for a simple apples-to-apples comparison, abolish racism AGAINST Whites for that matter? For these people "racism" is a one-way street: something done BY Whites TO non-Whites. Really, these resolutions are for the sole purpose of making sure Whitey accepts his replacement as quietly as possible. Not going to happen, fuckers.
>>1995 As more and more places adopt more and more oppressive laws, it becomes harder to find exit nodes outside of them. If the poz grows strong enough, they might start blocking countries that don't support their version of internet censorship, like china has.
>>1996 This is why the internet itself needs to go 'dark' as in Tor or i2p. Running an exit node is becoming exceedingly difficult and most people wouldn't ever bother because of the legal implications, meaning that the only people running exit nodes are going to be government-sactioned good goys, which makes censorship and traffic analysis much easier for them. (Remember that it becomes possible to deanonymize users through traffic analysis when an adversary can monitor both entry and exit nodes.)
The internet would be so much better if it was built on top of anonymous, censorship-resistant protocols like Tor or i2p. Instead we have this half-baked solution where we use Tor to browse "clearnet". It's nothing more than a band aid on top of a broken web.
In order to avoid a totalitarian pozzed future, the dark web needs to replace the surface web.
>>1998 I agree. Browsing clearnet over Tor is not a viable long-term solution.
Most exit nodes are hosted under a few "Tor-friendly" hosting companies and ISPs. This makes the job of compromising/shutting them down even easier for an oppressive government.
>>1998 tell me how to run an exit node.
I am running Linux on everything now.
I have fiber optic.
I can run it off of a Raspi if you need me to.
Will it set an alert off with my ISP?
I can run it during the evenings, during heavy usage hours.
>>2041 Only allow https traffic through your node. That will protect you from some (not all) of the problems of running an exit node. Not to mention that people not using https are retards because you can spy on http traffic easily if you run an exit node.
UN General Assembly adopts record number of resolutions on internet governance and policy [which contains this part:]
>Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
>For the past several years, UNGA has adopted a resolution addressing Nazism, racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance. Naturally, the internet has become more prominent in such debates as digital technologies provide tools through which intolerance can be spread and counterbalanced. In recent years, this resolution took a relatively balanced approach in how it dealt with the online aspects of the issue. It previously included text recognising the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including on the internet, can play in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the need to promote the use of ICTs and the internet to contribute to the fight against racism, and called on civil society, states and other stakeholders to use all opportunities, including through the internet and social media, “to counter, in accordance with international human rights law, the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred and to promote the values of equality, non-discrimination, diversity and democracy.” The resolution had also expressed concern about the increased use of the internet to promote and disseminate racism, racial hatred, xenophobia, racial discrimination and related intolerance, and specifically reminded states of their obligations under Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in calling on them to counter the dissemination of racism online.
>The 2018 resolution took a dramatic turn. The number of paragraphs addressing internet issues almost tripled, with nearly all of them highlighting the negative contribution of the internet to neo-Nazi, violent nationalist, xenophobic or racist speech, organising and indoctrinisation. The preamble of the resolution includes the addition of these four new paragraphs:
>- Concerned by the use of Internet platforms by groups that propagate hate to plan, fundraise and circulate information about public events aimed at promoting racism, xenophobia and related intolerance, such as rallies, demonstrations and acts of violence,
>- Seriously concerned that neo-Nazi groups have increasingly targeted susceptible individuals, mainly children and youth, by means of specifically tailored websites with the aim of their indoctrination,
>- Noting with concern that the variation in national standards prohibiting hate speech may provide safe havens for neo-Nazi, violent nationalist, xenophobic or racist speech owing to the fact that many neo-Nazi and relevant extremist groups of a racist or xenophobic character operate transnationally by relying on Internet service providers or social media platforms,
>- Expressing its concern about the use of digital technologies by neo-Nazis and other hate groups to disseminate their ideology, while recognizing that digital technologies are of great importance for the enjoyment of human rights and for combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
>In the operative section, the resolution expresses concern regarding the use of the internet and social media by neo-Nazi groups to amplify their hate-filled messages and recruit new members across borders, and as well as at the increase in instances of groups and individuals espousing ideologies of hatred through the internet to disseminate ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, organise meetings and violent protests, fundraise and engage in other activities.
>There is no denying the fact that the internet can contribute to the spread of racist, xenophobic and neo-Nazi ideology and that it can enable individuals and groups to organise on the basis of such beliefs. However, by pointing to the negative role of the internet, without a single new reference to international human rights law, the new text in the 2018 resolution can easily be used to justify, if not encourage, undue restrictions on human rights online. Already, internet service providers and social media platforms face considerable pressure to take down content, delete accounts, and gain access to personal data, either through government requests, intimidation or self-regulation.
>There are plenty of UN resolutions concerning human rights online that could have been drawn on in this resolution, which could have both raised concern about the utilisation of the internet to propagate racism, while taking a human rights-based approach to addressing this issue, including by calling on the private sector to respect human rights in line with its responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. While the resolution does correctly note that the internet can play a positive role combating racism, xenophobia and neo-Nazism, it misses the mark in providing safeguards to ensure that the internet can actually be used for this purpose.
>This annual resolution led by the Russian Federation was once again adopted by a vote. At this latest UNGA session, the vote was 129 states in favour and two against, with 54 abstaining. As was the case in the past three years, the US and Ukraine were the sole “no” votes.
https://www.apc.org/en/node/35253 (at the bottom)