UN's internet security thing ... ermm what??

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/09/24/the-united-nations-has-a-radical-dangerous-vision-for-the-future-of-the-web/?postshare=2101443284403055

  Quote

 

On Thursday, the organization’s Broadband Commission for Digital Development released a damning “world-wide wake-up call” on what it calls “cyber VAWG,” or violence against women and girls. The report concludes that online harassment is “a problem of pandemic proportion” — which, nbd, we’ve all heard before.

[Men who harass women online are quite literally losers, new study finds]

But the United Nations then goes on to propose radical, proactive policy changes for both governments and social networks, effectively projecting a whole new vision for how the Internet could work.

Under U.S. law — the law that, not coincidentally, governs most of the world’s largest online platforms — intermediaries such as Twitter and Facebook generally can’t be held responsible for what people do on them. But the United Nations proposes both that social networks proactively police every profile and post, and that government agencies only “license” those who agree to do so.

this sounds really insane to me, of course i dont want ANYONE to be harassed on the internet but to me it sounds like good old "we are banning the internet because we have to protect [insert victim here]

Maybe someone put me at ease, explain to me if im overreacting.

seems pretty bad

Are UN doing anything about women in the middle east? how about africa?, are these even on the agenda? i dont know im too scare to google.

It's probably a bad thing for you if you like to harrass women online. If you don't like to harrass women online, this doesn't apply to you. Unless you harrass women, Deer?

well this is what im worry about "proactively police every profile and post", i mean here is an example, while policing a random profile they find the person is smoking weed in an illegal state, are they now require to report you to the authorities?

Maybe im misunderstanding the technology, wonder how it works.

silence harrassment or false flag for silencing dissent, speaking against the state = terrorism, prosecute purveyors of "disinformation" ie. any story that does not comply with status quo, no freedom of speech, a real life thought police, new world order

fyi the wikileaks twitter has been bigging this the last few days

makes me wonder about the harassment the couple of watmm women might have to cope with. if it's really pandemic, that is. possibly the UN based its conclusions purely on /b/. ?

On one hand I worry that this might be the start of something bigger and worse, but on the other hand I'm like whatever

sounds like net neutrality part 2 to me

Deer used to give me shit for bringing up topics like this on the board regularly a few years back, glad to see he's not a total dyed in the wool dick head anymore

*shares a beer with Deer but still puts a lot of lsd in it without his knowledge*

Oh... so the software that gchq and the nsa are using is now that stable and ready to be shipped to the normal market. I see and the companies that build these systems now want to force these into the normal market by lobbying via the U.N.

Interessting move.

i don't give too much attention to this

let them push their agenda

i'll push mine

  On 9/26/2015 at 7:23 PM, Deer said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/09/24/the-united-nations-has-a-radical-dangerous-vision-for-the-future-of-the-web/?postshare=2101443284403055

 

  Quote

 

On Thursday, the organization’s Broadband Commission for Digital Development released a damning “world-wide wake-up call” on what it calls “cyber VAWG,” or violence against women and girls. The report concludes that online harassment is “a problem of pandemic proportion” — which, nbd, we’ve all heard before.

[Men who harass women online are quite literally losers, new study finds]

But the United Nations then goes on to propose radical, proactive policy changes for both governments and social networks, effectively projecting a whole new vision for how the Internet could work.

Under U.S. law — the law that, not coincidentally, governs most of the world’s largest online platforms — intermediaries such as Twitter and Facebook generally can’t be held responsible for what people do on them. But the United Nations proposes both that social networks proactively police every profile and post, and that government agencies only “license” those who agree to do so.

 

this sounds really insane to me, of course i dont want ANYONE to be harassed on the internet but to me it sounds like good old "we are banning the internet because we have to protect [insert victim here]

 

Maybe someone put me at ease, explain to me if im overreacting.

 

 

oh so that's why they were placing in the media all those phoney stats about rapes on campuses and everything. lorl think of the girldren. no mention of saudi arabia or india or somewhere where females actually do get a raw deal.

  On 9/26/2015 at 8:01 PM, Bechuga said:

It's probably a bad thing for you if you like to harrass women online. If you don't like to harrass women online, this doesn't apply to you. Unless you harrass women, Deer?

the definition of harassment will be changed though bechuga, This is where it gets really scary. /he disagreed with me, i feel triggered, it's rape (there is a guy facing jail in canada for disagreeing with femnazis, fucking prison time, for 'harassment' which it wasn't in an open forum and he was neither dogged nor nasty he was defending someone else who was being harassed by the femnazis (they were trying to ruin that guy's life) !!, but they 'felt' it was because he disagreed with them)

freedom of speech is fundamental. You do not have the right not to be offended. (although in protection of this messageboard you must here conform to our community rules here. you're only allowed to harass dleet, heh. -sie-

  On 9/27/2015 at 2:05 AM, delet... said:

 

  On 9/26/2015 at 7:23 PM, Deer said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/09/24/the-united-nations-has-a-radical-dangerous-vision-for-the-future-of-the-web/?postshare=2101443284403055

 

  Quote

 

On Thursday, the organization’s Broadband Commission for Digital Development released a damning “world-wide wake-up call” on what it calls “cyber VAWG,” or violence against women and girls. The report concludes that online harassment is “a problem of pandemic proportion” — which, nbd, we’ve all heard before.

[Men who harass women online are quite literally losers, new study finds]

But the United Nations then goes on to propose radical, proactive policy changes for both governments and social networks, effectively projecting a whole new vision for how the Internet could work.

Under U.S. law — the law that, not coincidentally, governs most of the world’s largest online platforms — intermediaries such as Twitter and Facebook generally can’t be held responsible for what people do on them. But the United Nations proposes both that social networks proactively police every profile and post, and that government agencies only “license” those who agree to do so.

 

this sounds really insane to me, of course i dont want ANYONE to be harassed on the internet but to me it sounds like good old "we are banning the internet because we have to protect [insert victim here]

 

Maybe someone put me at ease, explain to me if im overreacting.

 

 

 

oh so that's why they were placing in the media all those phoney stats about rapes on campuses and everything. lorl think of the girldren. no mention of saudi arabia or india or somewhere where females actually do get a raw deal.

  On 9/26/2015 at 8:01 PM, Bechuga said:

It's probably a bad thing for you if you like to harrass women online. If you don't like to harrass women online, this doesn't apply to you. Unless you harrass women, Deer?

 

the definition of harassment will be changed though bechuga, This is where it gets really scary. /he disagreed with me, i feel triggered, it's rape (there is a guy facing jail in canada for disagreeing with femnazis, fucking prison time, for 'harassment' which it wasn't in an open forum and he was neither dogged nor nasty he was defending someone else who was being harassed by the femnazis (they were trying to ruin that guy's life) !!, but they 'felt' it was because he disagreed with them)

 

freedom of speech is fundamental. You do not have the right not to be offended. (although in protection of this messageboard you must here conform to our community rules here. you're only allowed to harass dleet, heh. -sie-

 

Your posts are a harrassment towards free speech

hor hor .. although i did literally ask for it in the post. -siex2-

  On 9/26/2015 at 11:57 PM, Psychotronic said:

Oh... so the software that gchq and the nsa are using is now that stable and ready to be shipped to the normal market. I see and the companies that build these systems now want to force these into the normal market by lobbying via the U.N.

 

Interessting move.

They didnt think that throught completly. The next step needs to be forcing everyone to use these the plattforms by lobbying into public services. People should not be able to use public services without oauth'ing through social media. You need to force everyone to bind to these plattforms. People shouldn't be able to not use social media. See... it's very easy. Hitler did basically the same. He ordered to ship radios(Volksempfänger) to all households in germany to dictate his narrative. If people can avoid your narrative by throwing their TVs and radios out of their windows, not reading your syncronized press or media narrative, you might loose control over them. I know, i know... social media looks like a promissing plattform to reestablish it. But they need to do the right way.

we gotta make the net more neutral i tells ya

by letting the gov have more control over it

because... the gov is... neutral...

right guys?

wonder when theyre gonna start regulating online political discourse/media? you know... to make it more.. neutral

Have you guys read this?

  Quote

 

As Trafford Sewell struggles to work through the usual crowds of commuters, he is confronted by the intimidating figure of his priest, full of accusatory questions. Why has Trafford not been streaming his every moment of sexual intimacy onto the community website like everybody else? Does he think he's different or special in some way? Does he have something to hide? Imagine a world where everyone knows everything about everybody. Where what a person "feels" and "truly believes" is protected under the law, while what is rational, even provable, is condemned as heresy. A world where to question ignorance and intolerance is to commit a crime against Faith.

  On 9/27/2015 at 3:53 AM, Haste said:

 

Have you guys read this?

 

 

  Quote

 

As Trafford Sewell struggles to work through the usual crowds of commuters, he is confronted by the intimidating figure of his priest, full of accusatory questions. Why has Trafford not been streaming his every moment of sexual intimacy onto the community website like everybody else? Does he think he's different or special in some way? Does he have something to hide? Imagine a world where everyone knows everything about everybody. Where what a person "feels" and "truly believes" is protected under the law, while what is rational, even provable, is condemned as heresy. A world where to question ignorance and intolerance is to commit a crime against Faith.

https://youtu.be/58ZIdyd3rjg

  On 9/27/2015 at 2:30 PM, Amen Warrior said:

 

  On 9/27/2015 at 3:53 AM, Haste said:

Have you guys read this?

 

 

  Quote

 

As Trafford Sewell struggles to work through the usual crowds of commuters, he is confronted by the intimidating figure of his priest, full of accusatory questions. Why has Trafford not been streaming his every moment of sexual intimacy onto the community website like everybody else? Does he think he's different or special in some way? Does he have something to hide? Imagine a world where everyone knows everything about everybody. Where what a person "feels" and "truly believes" is protected under the law, while what is rational, even provable, is condemned as heresy. A world where to question ignorance and intolerance is to commit a crime against Faith.

 

Fair enough. I don't know much about Ben Elton. Don't care either.

  On 9/27/2015 at 4:37 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

this will never happen, i guarantee it.

Do we get to vote?

Obligatoire

  On 9/26/2015 at 8:01 PM, Bechuga said:

It's probably a bad thing for you if you like to harrass women online. If you don't like to harrass women online, this doesn't apply to you. Unless you harrass women, Deer?

That's the mentality that people have that allows tyranny to happen. If people invade your privacy or compromise your rights, you can say "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I shouldn't be worried," but what you don't realize is what can happen as a result, which is often corruption of power and punishment of innocent people who can't defend themselves.