CRITICS AND COUNTERARGUMENTS
freedom of speech in general:
Critic on freedom of speech
The resolution’s proposed regulations could lead to censorship, suppressing freedom of expression.
Governments or international bodies might misuse these measures to control political discourse and
restrict diverse viewpoints.
Counterargument:
The resolution focuses on combating harmful content like disinformation, not curbing legitimate speech.
By ensuring transparent, impartial enforcement, we can protect freedom of expression while addressing
the dangers of online manipulation
biased targeting specific countries
Critic: There’s a concern that the sanctions and oversight could disproportionately target specific
countries or groups, potentially exacerbating geopolitical tensions and infringing on sovereignty.
Counterargument:
Sanctions and oversight would be based on clear, unbiased criteria and aimed at addressing malicious
activity, not punishing specific nations. The goal is to safeguard international security and sovereignty, not
to exacerbate conflict.
(imp)
Clause 1 a (i). (Cybersecurity Infrastructure Strengthening):
"Creating an International Cybersecurity Task Force made up of unbiased cybersecurity professionals...
with robust oversight mechanisms."
- Possible Critique (Developing countries, tech companies):
The proposal may be seen as creating a bureaucratic task force that could be difficult to navigate for
developing nations. Furthermore, tech companies might resist external oversight, fearing potential
restrictions on operations or excessive interference in their business practices.
- Counter:
The task force's goal is to provide support and build local capacity, not to impose rigid frameworks.
Developing countries will have input and leadership roles to ensure that the solutions are practical,
adaptable, and aligned with their unique needs.
—
(imp)
Clause 1 b (ii) Legal and Regulatory Framework Support:
"Mandating the creation of independent regulatory bodies in developing nations to oversee the
rollout of cybersecurity and counter-disinformation efforts."
● Possible Critique (Developing Countries, Administrative Overload):
Developing countries may struggle to establish or maintain independent regulatory bodies due to
a lack of resources, expertise, or institutional capacity. The pressure to create such bodies might
overburden already strained governance structures, and there may be concerns about the
sustainability of these initiatives.
Counter:
The proposal includes capacity-building programs to strengthen local institutions and provide the
necessary training and resources. The goal is not to impose a regulatory body but to empower developing
countries to create and manage frameworks that align with their governance structures. Support will be
gradual, ensuring that developing nations have the tools and infrastructure to maintain effective regulation
over time.
(imp)
Clause 1 c (i). (Countering Disinformation and Information Manipulation):
"Establishing autonomous fact-checking organizations in collaboration with UN agencies, media
watchdogs, and civil society."
- Possible Critique (Freedom of speech advocates):
Fact-checking organizations, especially those with ties to the UN, might be perceived as politically
biased, leading to concerns over censorship and the suppression of legitimate discourse.
- Counter:
These organizations will be independent, and their role is to provide transparency, not to stifle
dissenting opinions. The primary focus is to combat harmful misinformation that threatens national
security or public safety, while preserving free speech and democratic engagement.
(imp)
Clause 8 (Utilization of AI Technology):
"Encourages utilization of AI technology to identify, delete, and prevent the spread of misinformation."
- Possible Critique (Privacy advocates, tech companies):
AI-driven content moderation may lead to overreach and violations of privacy, potentially censoring
legitimate political speech or dissent. There is a risk that AI could be misused, raising concerns about
algorithmic biases and lack of accountability.
- Counter:
AI technology will be used to address harmful disinformation, not to restrict free expression. Safeguards
will be implemented to ensure AI is transparent, equitable, and accountable. The focus is on protecting
citizens from dangerous misinformation while preserving open dialogue.
---
Clause 3 (Foreign Funding Disclosure):
"Proposes enforcing full disclosure of foreign funding for media organizations with penalties for
non-compliance."
- Possible Critique (Media organizations, international relations):
Mandatory foreign funding disclosure might discourage foreign investment in media and could be seen
as a form of undue government control, potentially limiting media freedom and independent reporting.
- Counter:
The goal is transparency, not censorship. By providing clarity on financial sources, media organizations
can protect their integrity and avoid being accused of foreign influence. The regulations would ensure
balanced and fair media coverage, free from external manipulation.
Clause 10(Sanctions Against States Abusing Social Media):
"Proposes that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and member states impose targeted sanctions
against those states that are determined to be abusing social media platforms for nefarious objectives."
- Possible Critique (Targeted countries, critics of sanctions):
Sanctions, even targeted ones, could harm ordinary citizens rather than those responsible for the
malicious use of social media. There could also be concerns about the fairness and consistency of
applying sanctions.
- Counter:
The sanctions will be carefully tailored to hold accountable those responsible for malicious activities
without causing harm to civilians. The aim is to protect vulnerable populations from the effects of
disinformation campaigns, while ensuring that those who perpetrate these actions are held responsible.
---
Clause 14 (UN Information Integrity Council - UIIC):
"Urges the United Nations to establish an integrated system, founded on periodic review and
evidence-based evaluation of cybersecurity strengthening programs."
- Possible Critique (Bureaucratic inefficiency):
The creation of a new UN body could lead to additional bureaucracy, slowing down the implementation
of effective cybersecurity measures. The UIIC could be perceived as another layer of bureaucracy that
might not achieve meaningful results.
- Counter:
The establishment of the UIIC is designed to bring specialized oversight and expertise to information
integrity programs. It will serve as a global coordination body, ensuring that cybersecurity efforts are both
effective and continuously improved upon through evidence-based evaluation.
---
Clause 13 (International Code of Conduct for Social Media):
"Calls for the creation of an international code of conduct for social media platforms and technology
companies."
- Possible Critique (Tech companies, free market advocates):
A universal code of conduct could stifle innovation and lead to overregulation that could limit the
operational flexibility of social media platforms. Companies may resist being held to a rigid code,
particularly when it impacts their business models.
- Counter:
The code will aim to balance the need for regulation with respect for innovation. The goal is not to
overregulate but to ensure that social media platforms act ethically in preventing the spread of harmful
content, all while preserving their capacity for creative and business activities.
---
Clause 14 (International Cooperation Frameworks):
"Urges Member States to foster the creation of international cooperation frameworks for sharing best
practices in counter-information warfare."
- Possible Critique (National sovereignty, local context):
The resolution might be criticized for attempting to impose a one-size-fits-all solution. Information
warfare is context-dependent, and what works in one country may not be effective in another.
- Counter:
The resolution advocates for flexible frameworks that respect national sovereignty while allowing for
the sharing of best practices. The goal is to promote collaboration without forcing countries to abandon
their own unique methods or cultures.
---
Clause 15 a (Universal Code of Ethics for Social Media Companies):
"Mandates platforms to submit to independent audits to ensure adherence to the code of conduct."
- Possible Critique (Privacy, corporate resistance):
Independent audits could lead to corporate resistance, particularly if they are seen as intrusive or
burdensome. Concerns about the collection of private data for audits and the possibility of unfair or
inconsistent audits might arise.
- Counter:
The audits will be conducted with transparency, focusing only on ensuring that social media platforms
adhere to ethical standards. This initiative aims to protect user data, promote accountability, and prevent
the spread of harmful content while ensuring platforms maintain a fair and open environment.
