Censorship Industrial Complex
UN General Assembly Adopts Controversial Cybercrime Treaty Amid Criticism Over Censorship and Surveillance Risks
If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.
Global cybercrime treaty faces scrutiny over human rights safeguards and potential misuse of cross-border powers.
|
As we expected, even though opponents have been warning that the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime needed to have a narrower scope, strong human rights safeguard and be more clearly defined in order to avoid abuse – the UN General Assembly has just adopted the documents, after five years of wrangling between various stakeholders.
It is now up to UN-member states to first sign, and then ratify the treaty that will come into force three months after the 40th country does that. The UN bureaucracy is pleased with the development, hailing the convention as a “landmark” and “historic” global treaty that will improve cross-border cooperation against cybercrime and digital threats. But critics have been saying that speech and human rights might fall victim to the treaty since various UN members treat human rights and privacy in vastly different ways – while the treaty now in a way “standardizes” law enforcement agencies’ investigative powers across borders. Considerable emphasis has been put by some on how “authoritarian” countries might abuse this new tool meant to tackle online crime – but in reality, this concern applies to any country that ends up ratifying the treaty. Another point of criticism has been that UN members individually already have laws that address the same issues, rendering the convention superfluous – unless it is to extend some of those authoritarian powers to the countries that don’t formally have them, and can’t outright pass them at home for political reasons. Since the UN General Assembly adopted the resolution without a vote – after the text was previously agreed on by negotiators – it is not immediately clear how many countries might sign it next year, and ratify what would then become a legally binding document. In the meanwhile, a spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres referred to the treaty as “a demonstration of multilateralism.” Where opponents see potential for undemocratic law enforcement practices spilling over sovereign borders, UN representatives speak about “an unprecedented platform for cooperation” that will allow agencies to exchange evidence, create a safe cyberspace, and protect victims of crimes such as child sexual abuse, scams and money laundering. And they claim all this will be achieved “while safeguarding human rights online.” |
|
|
|
Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.
Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance. Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause. Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.
Thank you.
|
Censorship Industrial Complex
How Wikipedia Got Captured: Leftist Editors & Foreign Influence On Internet’s Biggest Source of Info
Fr0m Stossel TV
I once reported how great Wikipedia is. But now, it’s manipulated by leftists. That’s a big problem because its bad information corrupts AI and search results. Even c0-founder Larry Sanger agrees.
But that’s just the beginning of the problem because “Wikipedia’s information spreads into everything online,” says @ashleyrindsbergmedia of @NPOVmedia .
That means when your ask ChatGPT, Google, or your phone a question, it’ll likely to take leftist spin straight from Wikipedia. Wikipedia bans most right-wing news sources and suggests Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist (but they don’t even call Fidel Castro’s successor authoritarian).
They’ve turned my Wikipedia page into a smear against me.
I explain in this video.
_ _ _ _ _ _
To make sure you receive the weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here:
https://www.johnstossel.com/#subscrib…
_ _ _ _ _ _
Censorship Industrial Complex
Death by a thousand clicks – government censorship of Canada’s internet
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces its latest publication, Death by a thousand clicks: The rise of internet censorship and control in Canada, authored by veteran journalist and researcher Nigel Hannaford. The report outlines how recommendations from the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel in 2020 set the stage for a series of federal bills that have collectively transformed Canada’s once open internet into a state-managed digital environment that restricts what Canadians may access, share, and say online.
The report highlights the following federal legislation:
Online Streaming Act (C-11): Passed in 2023, this Bill gives the CRTC power to regulate online videos and other content, including material created by everyday Canadians. It also lets the government influence online “discoverability,” meaning it can push certain content to the top of your feeds while making other content harder to find.
Online News Act (C-18): Also passed in 2023, this Bill forces platforms to pay approved news outlets, a measure that led to increased dependence of media organizations on the government and widespread blocking of Canadian news as a result of Meta’s news ban on Facebook and Instagram.
Online Harms Act (C-63): Although this Bill was halted by the 2025 election, it would have empowered a new “Digital Safety Commission” to order content removals, demand platform data, levy severe financial penalties on service providers for non-compliance with regulations created by the federal cabinet, and impose house arrest on Canadians who had not been charged with or convicted of any crime. It also would have allowed the Canadian Human Rights Commission to pursue Canadians over non-criminal “discriminatory” speech, together creating a sweeping censorship regime under the guise of addressing so-called “harms” that were already illegal.
Strong Borders Act (C-2): Introduced in June 2025 and currently at second reading, this Bill authorizes law enforcement to obtain subscriber information and metadata without a warrant, chilling anonymous online expression and eroding digital privacy.
An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts (C-8): Introduced in April 2025 and now before committee, this Bill expands government access to private networks and enables federal officials to direct telecommunications providers to kick individual Canadians off the internet without due process or appeal.
Combatting Hate Act (C-9): Introduced in September 2025 and currently before Parliament, this Bill broadens “hate-propaganda” offences, removes Attorney General oversight for prosecutions, encourages widespread self-censorship, and makes Canada more like the United Kingdom, where thousands of citizens are arrested over their social media commentary.
Report author Nigel Hannaford said, “It is important for Canadians to know that these bills are not isolated technical updates. Together they form a coordinated shift toward state-managed digital speech.”
“If we value open debate, privacy, and democratic accountability, we need to repeal the laws already passed and stop the ones now before Parliament,” he added.
Benjamin Klassen, Research and Education Coordinator for the Justice Centre, said, “It is important Canadians stay informed about these important issues. An informed public is essential to a free society.”
“Through research reports like this one, our Education team works to explain complex legislation in a way that empowers Canadians to participate in the national debate around important policies and defend their rights and freedoms,” he added.
To protect free expression online, Canadians should demand the repeal of Bills C-11 and C-18, insist that MPs vote against Bills C-2, C-8, and C-9, and elect representatives committed to restoring a free and open internet.
Trump DOJ seeks to quash Pfizer whistleblower’s lawsuit over COVID shots
Alberta introducing three “all-season resort areas” to provide more summer activities in Alberta’s mountain parks
The $50 Billion Question: EVs Never Delivered What Ottawa Promised
Trump admin wants to help Canadian woman rethink euthanasia, Glenn Beck says
-
Alberta2 days agoCanada’s New Green Deal
-
Business2 days agoCanada’s recent economic growth performance has been awful
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta’s huge oil sands reserves dwarf U.S. shale
-
Indigenous2 days agoResidential school burials controversy continues to fuel wave of church arsons, new data suggests
-
armed forces2 days agoOttawa’s Newly Released Defence Plan Crosses a Dangerous Line
-
Health2 days agoSaskatchewan woman approved for euthanasia urged to seek medical help in Canada rather than US
-
Business2 days agoCOP30 finally admits what resource workers already knew: prosperity and lower emissions must go hand in hand
-
Health2 days agoCanadian gov’t considers sharing census data on gender-confused children