| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| UN Wants to censor the entire Internet |
| 2015-09-26 |
| They gave SJWs a worldwide megaphone In a report released yesterday, entitled “Cyber Violence Against Women And Girls: A Global Wake-up Call,” UN Women, the group behind last year’s risible “He for She” campaign, called on governments to use their “licensing prerogative” to ensure that “telecoms and search engines” are only “allowed to connect with the public” if they “supervise content and its dissemination.” In other words, if search engines and ISPs don’t comply with a list of the UN’s censorship demands, the UN wants national governments to cut off their access to the public. So, what sort of content does the UN want to censor? ISIS recruitment videos, perhaps, which lure women into lives of rape and servitude? Live-streamed executions from Syria? Revenge porn or snuff videos? There’s no shortage of dangerous and potentially traumatising content on the web, after all, much of it disproportionately affecting women. Alas not. The UN is hung up on “cyber violence against women,” a Kafkaesque term that is apparently shorthand for “women being criticised on the internet.” At least, that’s how at least two attendees at the launch of the UN report, published by the United Nations Broadband Commission, explained it yesterday. According to feminist culture critic Anita Sarkeesian, who spoke at the event, online “harassment” doesn’t simply consist of what is “legal and illegal,” but “also the day-to-day grind of ‘you’re a liar’ and ‘you suck,’ including all of these hate videos that attack us on a regular basis.” Unable to prove that they are the victims of a wave of “misogynistic hate” – no bomb threat against a feminist critic of video games has ever been deemed credible and there are serious doubts about threats supposedly levelled at transsexual activist Brianna Wu – feminists are trying to redefine violence and harassment to include disobliging tweets and criticisms of their work. In other words: someone said “you suck” to Anita Sarkeesian and now we have to censor the internet. Who could have predicted such a thing? It’s worth noting, by the way, that if Sarkeesian’s definition is correct, Donald Trump is the world’s greatest victim of “cyber-violence.” Someone should let him know. Sarkeesian’s comments were echoed by former video game developer, feminist activist and professional victim Zoe Quinn, who told the United Nations: “There are individuals on YouTube who have made a living off of [sic] abusing Anita and I.” Quinn does not name any specific YouTubers, and we are left guessing as to who these mysterious “abusers” really are. Hmm. Quinn makes more than $3,000 a month on donation site Patreon as she travels around the world talking about her “harassment” story. If anyone is turning a profit from alleged “online abuse,” it’s not the YouTubers. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #6 The UN prefers the old fashion non-digital abuse of women. |
| Posted by: Airandee 2015-09-26 17:42 |
| #5 Enter the DarkNet. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2015-09-26 14:41 |
| #4 I've felt for along time that the US should push for Security Council seats for Japan and Brazil and perhaps India. Look like a hero to the 3rd world for offering up the possibilities while guaranteeing that Russia and China do everything they can to ensure there are no additional seats as it dilutes their power. Then we can just throw up our hands in disgust and stop paying dues and tell them to move the 'world assembly' somewhere else. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2015-09-26 11:58 |
| #3 It's useless to try and reason with international socialists. Like with their nationalist predecessors, the only argument that makes an impression is overwhelming force applied with uncompromising ruthlessness. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2015-09-26 04:04 |
| #2 If the US pulls funding the UN ceases to exist. Do it. Having Saudi chair the HRC is the last straw for me. The WHO is a failure too, just look at ebola. Just pull funding |
| Posted by: anon1 2015-09-26 03:57 |
| #1 Quinn does not name any specific YouTubers, and we are left guessing as to who these mysterious “abusers” really are Let me guess Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn are doing it themselves - because nobody else really gives a rats ass. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2015-09-26 01:09 |