As the debates in the Human Right Council go on, matters get increasingly divergent. A line is clearly being drawn between two blocks - representatives of their respectful countries, who are more liberal in regards to freedom of expression in the media, and those who strongly claim the necessity of censuring and of more power in the hands of the government regarding such censuring.
Finding common ground is showing itself to be difficult, since Russia, backed by other delegates such as the representatives of the People's Republic of China and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, regularly mention the importance of sovereignty, arguing that other countries shouldn’t get to decide how their governments are run.
“What’s the UN’s role, then?” responded the delegate of India to Russia’s statement, disagreeing with the country’s view on the lack of influence that the rest of the world should have in each other's governments. Proposing to establish a multi-national fact-checking body for the prevention of fake news, India wasn’t met with much support from the opposing blocks, which want to keep the large governmental control over the media of their own countries.
While all delegations agree that hate speeches and fake news should be stopped, the delegation of India was the only one to give a suggestion to solve a very important issue: “Who or what is actually supposed to regulate the media?”
After all, the internet is extremely big, and the quantity of content being uploaded everyday is way too large for one person or a group of people to verify all of it. A much more realistic answer would be to implant filter-programs to do the job, however, how reliable can a machine/software be?
When even the delegates representing some of the most important nations in the world can’t come to a consensus about the blurry definitions differentiating hate speeches from opinions, the dream that a machine would be able to do such is unrealistic.