The UN’s Global Digital Compact, disguised as a plan for internet safety, is actually a blueprint for global surveillance, designed to control free speech and silence dissent under the guise of combating misinformation.
Two weeks ago, the 193 countries of the United Nations quietly adopted The Pact for the Future, a document that is raising alarm bells among critics. Of particular concern is the Global Digital Compact (GDC), an appendix within this pact that introduces sweeping regulations for what many are calling “Internet 2.0.” Tech expert Tim Hinchcliffe warns that this is nothing short of “a path to a digital gulag.”
Hinchcliffe, writing for The Sociable—a site focused on the intersection of technology and society—expresses outrage at how little attention the mainstream media has given to the UN’s Summit of the Future, held just weeks ago. This lack of scrutiny reflects a larger trend of global elites pushing sweeping changes under the radar, knowing full well that public awareness would invite resistance. According to him, the world’s nations quietly agreed to bizarre measures that will severely restrict individual freedoms, all under the guise of The Pact for the Future.
The most chilling aspect of this pact, according to Hinchcliffe, is the Global Digital Compact. While Achim Steiner of the UN Development Programme (UNDP) describes it as a framework for “inclusive, open, sustainable, fair, and secure digital futures for all,” Hinchcliffe sees it as something far more sinister: “a roadmap to a digital gulag.”
The concept of an all-encompassing digital infrastructure is eerily reminiscent of authoritarian regimes where surveillance and censorship become tools of absolute control.
In this new system, every individual would be connected to the internet through a digital identity, and those who question the UN’s vision would be crushed for spreading so-called “hate speech” and “disinformation.” In Hinchcliffe’s view, free speech will no longer exist on UN-regulated Internet 2.0.
Anyone who carefully reads the document and listens to its architects will find that Hinchcliffe’s interpretation aligns more closely with the 16-page document than Steiner’s optimistic rhetoric. Section 34 of the pact states: “We will collaborate internationally to address the challenges of misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech by mitigating the risks of information manipulation in ways that are consistent with international law.” But this vague language leaves open the critical question: who defines what constitutes “hate speech” and “disinformation”? And, most importantly, who gets to decide?
As history has shown, the answer became clear during the summit: the UN will decide. At a panel discussion in New York, titled The Future of Information Integrity and the SDGs, UN Under-Secretary for Global Communications Melissa Fleming—who in 2022 famously declared, “We own the science” in reference to climate change—indicated that the UN would crack down on anything counter to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Fleming’s declaration is a chilling reminder of the dangers of centralized control over information.
Fleming explained that the UN shifted course after realizing its messaging was being questioned on major platforms. “We were attacked online. Every SDG has been tainted by disinformation or hate speech,” she said, justifying the need for the UN Global Principles for Information Integrity. She claims these principles are the blueprint for a “healthy information ecosystem.”
Fleming stressed that the UN “had no choice but to act.” She argued that today’s internet has become “so toxic” that it’s nearly impossible to communicate in an environment filled with people who oppose “the forces of good,” a group she places the UN within.
This framing of dissent as “toxicity” is a dangerous precedent, one that echoes the tactics of authoritarian regimes throughout history, where any criticism of the ruling powers is dismissed as harmful or even treasonous. “We must find new ways to cut through the disinformation and hate.”
Fleming’s stance is clear: if you don’t agree with the UN, you are participating in disinformation and hate speech — a common theme throughout the session. This narrative was reinforced by New America think tank CEO Ann-Marie Slaughter, who voiced her own concerns about the dangers of unregulated speech online. “
One of these methods is the deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) to “cleanse” online information. In fact, AI has already been used by authoritarian regimes like China’s, where it helps to monitor and suppress dissenting voices. According to the GDC, information aligned with the SDGs will be classified as truth, while anything undermining the SDGs will be labeled disinformation.
History teaches us that such centralized control—whether through Stalin’s purges or China’s social credit system—inevitably leads to the erosion of freedoms. Today, with more sophisticated tools of surveillance, the outcome remains the same: disagreement is crushed, and free thought is suffocated under the guise of protecting society.
Whenever power is centralized, especially in the hands of a few unelected officials, individual freedoms are the first casualty. The Pact for the Future represents not just a digital shift but a global power grab that seeks to control how people think, speak, and interact with the world. While the UN may frame this as progress, the reality looks far more like a digital gulag than a utopia.
No comments:
Post a Comment