a_diplomat

ᶦ ᶠᵉˡᵗ ˢᵒ ˡᵒⁿᵉˡʸ ᵇᵘᵗ ᶦᵗ'ˢ ᵇᵉᵗᵗᵉʳ ⁿᵒʷ

I was stationed in Rwanda for several years, and visited your operations centers several times. Truly awesome stuff, that's also helped Rwanda in a bigger way, by giving the country well-deserved recognition for its propensity towards innovation.

We could vote against another proposal, but opening up the framework of human rights for renegotiation would be a substantial thing to do, and would set a precedent. Not working for the US or the UK.

There are horizontal issues to every resolution, and every resolution is written in a context. If you open up for environmental crimes, then some country will want to open up for "illegal speech" directed towards the state.

Yup. And also, authoritarian government uses <insert reason> to open up the framework for negotiation and weaken existing norms.

It wouldn't be so much about the rights themselves being authoritarian, but that opening up the framework for renegotiation would weaken existing norms. You could, for instance, almost be certain that some countries would like to put more limits to freedom of expression.

It doesn't mean that they can never be established, it just means that in the current international political climate, there is very little interest from democratic states to open it up, since the consequences could be so vast. If the world was nicer and everyone were friends it would be easy.

Hi. Diplomat working with UN issues here. The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will be used by other countries to shift the language on human rights in a more authoritarian direction - or dilute human rights as such.

So it's basically about using one set of issues, which in substance are hard to fight, to weaken human rights as a whole. But it could just as easily have been about something else, like the "right to development", which has been pushed by authoritarian countries for years.

It's also the case that there are a lot more people living in undemocratic countries than in democratic ones. I understand the need to have multiple solutions to this problem, but this can never become an alternative for platforms taking more responsibility for content themselves. And, for democratic countries to create a grand coalition to set norms in this space.

In other words, they want people to do fact checking for free for them.

Actually no, it's the opposite. It's governments regulating companies, and thereby taking responsibility. Going a step further would make governments actively intervene in day-to-day-operations.