content governance

But the truth is, the internet cannot be both globally acceptable and a force for democracy.
Good Wired article about censorship, self-censorship & the internet.

True, that. However, I think everybody has the right not to be offended. However, and this is more important, this should not result in censorship. To cut a long story short, that’s why we proposed client-based filter mechanisms in a positioning paper (Committee for a Democratic U.N. for WSIS II) on Future Governance of the Internet:

II. Free Expression: There must be no censorship and regulation on internet content. However free expression is given a limit wherever content harms freedoms and rights of others. Communities and unions (rings) of trust might be able to select and promote content (e.g. suitable for children). Collaborative filter and rating mechanisms (such as mojo) might also be suitable. In order to allow individual Netizens or communities not to be exposed to content they consider unsuitable for themselves or their children, all information shall be described by multidimensional metadata (ranging from language to labels for violence, nudity etc.). That way, these Netizens can apply individual, clientbased filter mechanisms.

Not flawless, that’s for sure. But it provides quite good protection, I guess.

Leave a Reply