The United Nations Is Trying To Take Control Of The Internet

Why is the United Nations trying to take control of the Internet? The moment the U.N. is granted control of the Internet, it will be a giant step toward making it an actual global government. The U.N. would like to monitor the Internet’s architecture, traffic flow and security.

Early in December of 2012, a U.N. conference was conducted over a 2 week period in Dubai. This was called the “World Conference on International Telecommunications”. The presiding chairman of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) “surveyed” the assembled countries to find out if they were all in favor of having an increased involvement of the U.N. in regulating the Internet. Even Google mounted a vociferous campaign against the conference’s recommendations for how much they could change everything online.

The Outcome of the Conference

China, Russia and a number of Islamic countries argued that the Internet is an international resource and that it must be governed by a global authority. Repressive regimes like those in these countries don’t thrive in an environment of freedom of speech and liberty. The U.S., Canada, Africa, Europe and a few other countries opposed this. The majority of the other nations supported the proposal, though.

This conference, unfortunately, still established a resolution to open the door for even more discourse over Internet controls. Even though this was supposed to be a “survey” run at that conference, a treaty was instituted late at night by majority rule. This treaty is to come into play in January of 2015. There is still sufficient time for political wrangling between now and then, though.

Before this conference, common citizens were getting into trouble for exercising free speech on the Internet. For instance, four Kuwaitis were jailed for purportedly using Twitter to disapprove of their country’s ruler. Nations have national sovereignty rights to enable them to do the things they each would like internally. The fact that this is already going on in several countries, though, suggests that free speech is not a priority there. However, free speech within this country is supposed to be guaranteed by our Constitution.

Current Policies vs Proposed U.N. Policies

Web addresses like “.com” are distributed freely to anyone. VS A governing body would control website distribution.

Websites can freely send information to the public. VS Websites would have to pay a fee (or tax) per visitor.

Content on a website is not restricted or censored. VS Content regularly reviewed by governing body for approval.

No penalty is imposed upon controversial content. VS Penalties of fines, website removal and jail time enforced.

The Value of the Internet

The Internet is the leading platform for free speech and freedom of expression on earth today. It promotes a free-market system of economics on an international scale. It has made information available in a quick and easy system that is publicly accessible around the world. It has completely changed communications and social networking. It has made education and employment opportunities more available to individuals in most areas of the world.

It is supposed to be an unregulated, international service that operates together with telecom systems which is free of direct interference by any government. The present guidelines that guide website traffic were not established by any government, but rather by programmers worldwide who agreed upon basic concepts.

The Internet has thrived and evolved mainly because it promotes a free and open multi-stakeholder governance system. It has never been centrally governed. Websites succeed with adherence to fundamental principles that result in increased visibilities. Their viewpoints become more renowned since they are presenting content that is current, appealing and original.


The U.N. assault on internet freedom did not end when this conference ended. The debate is still continuing and is centered upon which governing authority has the right to review and regulate the internet. Will it continue to be governed by each nation individually, or will the United Nations take over this responsibility?

If the U.N. achieves it’s objective and then publicly proclaims new regulations, these new policies would then have to be integrated throughout the Internet. Software would have to be modified to deal with these regulations. Internet service providers would need to adjust just how they operate. It would end up being a huge, problematic, expensive and likely even abusive process.

If the U.N. is allowed to acquire control over the Internet, it would be the largest power grab and corruption of its power in the U.N.’s history. Why should anyone even try to fix something which has functioned so well for such a long time and isn’t broken? Why is there now such a big push to have the Internet restricted? Is someone or something trying to control the Internet so that they can control how we think?

Censorship could become the new norm and free-market principles could be threatened. What we don’t want is a set of global treaty agreements that will allow countries to impose even more restrictive conditions upon their people. Freedom of speech is an unalienable right in this country. Let’s just hope and pray that our country’s leaders don’t throw away this right that we have before January of 2015.