Act now to stop unaccountable, censor-friendly UN agency from hijacking control of the Internet!

Evan from Fight for the Future, "The open internet is in danger. In just a few weeks, governments from around the world are getting together, and they could decide the future of our internet. Watch the video to find out why a government-dominated agency as old as the telegraph is trying to get its hands on the net we love. Then take action by using the platform to contact your government and tell them to stand up for an open internet."

There’s a meeting between the world’s governments in a just a few weeks, and it could very well decide the future of the internet through a binding international treaty. It’s called the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), and it’s being organized by a government-controlled UN agency called the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).

If some proposals at WCIT are approved, decisions about the internet would be made by a top-down, old-school government-centric agency behind closed doors. Some proposals allow for access to be cut off more easily, threaten privacy, legitimize monitoring and blocking online traffic. Others seek to impose new fees for accessing content, not to mention slowing down connection speeds. If the delicate balance of the internet is upset, it could have grave consequences for businesses and human rights.

The ITU could put the Internet behind closed doors. (Thanks, Evan!)


  1. How is any of what they’re seeking any different than what content providers are spending billions all over the world getting  implemented right now?

    The internet is screwed no matter what we do.. this frontier is gonna get tamed one way or another.

    1. It’s to spark a regime change via boycotting for a private company then it is to push for a regime change in Russia or China (the two countries pushing for the changes at WCIT)… just ask Pussy Riot or Chen Guangcheng.

    2. There are millions of content providers, only one internet. Content providers need to provide a service to get money. The US sucks money from goverments, who need not provide any service at all.

      1.  Surely you mean, “The UN sucks money…” – NOT “The US sucks money”  As a US tax payer whose money is being sucked to,among other things, distribute to other countries, I kinda resent the way you wrote that sentence.

    3. You’re probably right. Maybe we should go Tor route or mobile VPN (like Pirate Bay)? Just like music and movie industry model, once the corporations get the internets, they’ll probably carve it up and pump away til the well drys up.

      The internet is a network of infinitely complex communications, just like the human brain. And like the human brain, while parts are specialised it is only effective as it is because of its structural adaptability, which is non-hierarchical in nature. The proposed treaty adds such hierarchical mechanisms that will harm, rather than assist its effectiveness.  
      Same is true of music, probably why services like Spotify, Soundcloud, Youtube etc. took off so hugely. People just prefer networks to top-down systems. But profit-orientated business espoused by baby-boomers and the ilk obviously prefer the opposite. This is further proof that corporations are not people, or anything like people. 

    1.  This UN discussion is all about domain names, not the internet which is IP address and soon to be IPv6 address where each and every piece of hardware for hundreds of thousands of years could have a unique address.
      Domain names has become a mess with it being privatised and abused to increase profits.
      So new laws, distributed controls, treaties, mirrors etc to control and distribute the income from core domain names and an end to  the ludicrous notion of the US government being the world government as it currently portrays itself on the internet.

  2. grave consequences for businesses and human rights

    Interesting to put businesses before human rights…I think we need to know where Fight for the Future’s funding is coming from.

    1. Yes, because the order of items listed in a sentence directly correlates with the morals and values of its writer (see – clearly I place morals above values, ’cause I said it first).

    1. You mean we used to have a long established tradition of ignoring UN treaties.  We now have a President who’s probably eyeing the top spot at the UN once he’s out of office here.

  3. I was alive before the internet. I’m still alive and will be if the internet entirely disappears. For most people, the net is a bauble. It has benefitted industries, destroyed others.

    1. What a weird comment. Your lack of insight, which you try to pass off as worldly, is breathtaking. Try traveling. Maybe you’ll see how important the Internet is to a huge amount of people, even, actually especially, in less developed areas.

  4. The Open Internet is not in danger. The Brightnet (the one where any censorware can shine a light into) is in danger. And good riddance. The darknet is very much alive and kicking, the one nobody will be able to control.

Comments are closed.