InternetNZ has managed the process for 30 years. It has performed its function so quietly and efficiently that most New Zealanders may never have heard of the organisation. Until recently, InternetNZ’s mission was about as exciting as peacekeeping on the Chatham Islands.
But it seems that InternetNZ has grown tired of obscurity. Its Council has recently made some very interesting statements and proposals.
First, it strangely declared itself to be systemically racist. Its proposed remedy is to restrict its membership to those who agree that InternetNZ should be 'Te Tiriti centric' – a fashionable way of saying it will prioritise a politicised interpretation of the Treaty in all its decisions.
Next, the Council proposed a new, more heroic role for InternetNZ. It wants the organisation to help protect people from harm on the internet.
At first blush, this makes no sense. InternetNZ has no power to protect anyone. If it refuses a ‘.nz’ address, there are plenty of international providers willing to register a website. So, what is really going on?
A cynic might suspect that it is just another case of performative virtue signalling. But the most plausible explanation is that it is a cunning plan to boost revenue. And it has worked.
You see, InternetNZ's proposals drew fire from the Free Speech Union (FSU). The FSU wrote to its members warning them of risks: An InternetNZ with a mandate to prevent internet harm might be tempted to indulge in a bit of censorship on the side.
The FSU worries that a new activist InternetNZ might start revoking the website addresses of groups with unpopular opinions. After all, why seek shiny new powers if one does not intend to use them?
The FSU invited its members to pay the $21 fee to join InternetNZ and help vote down the proposal. Many did so.
In the following days, InternetNZ membership rose from 360 to more than two thousand. InternetNZ's mission to end internet harm might be implausible, but it has increased its membership income from $7.5k to $44k.
Now, the Council can quietly drop its proposal and book itself a nice junket in Fiji.
Dr Michael Johnston is a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
First, it strangely declared itself to be systemically racist. Its proposed remedy is to restrict its membership to those who agree that InternetNZ should be 'Te Tiriti centric' – a fashionable way of saying it will prioritise a politicised interpretation of the Treaty in all its decisions.
Next, the Council proposed a new, more heroic role for InternetNZ. It wants the organisation to help protect people from harm on the internet.
At first blush, this makes no sense. InternetNZ has no power to protect anyone. If it refuses a ‘.nz’ address, there are plenty of international providers willing to register a website. So, what is really going on?
A cynic might suspect that it is just another case of performative virtue signalling. But the most plausible explanation is that it is a cunning plan to boost revenue. And it has worked.
You see, InternetNZ's proposals drew fire from the Free Speech Union (FSU). The FSU wrote to its members warning them of risks: An InternetNZ with a mandate to prevent internet harm might be tempted to indulge in a bit of censorship on the side.
The FSU worries that a new activist InternetNZ might start revoking the website addresses of groups with unpopular opinions. After all, why seek shiny new powers if one does not intend to use them?
The FSU invited its members to pay the $21 fee to join InternetNZ and help vote down the proposal. Many did so.
In the following days, InternetNZ membership rose from 360 to more than two thousand. InternetNZ's mission to end internet harm might be implausible, but it has increased its membership income from $7.5k to $44k.
Now, the Council can quietly drop its proposal and book itself a nice junket in Fiji.
Dr Michael Johnston is a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
4 comments:
InternetNZ has been very generous with donations to the organisations running the 'A Bit Sus' Campaign. Fundamentally teaching NZ school children to spot right wing disinformation. We now know that US taxpayers were also kindly donating to the cause in New Zealand through grants from the US Embassy.
If this was all about increasing membership income they really haven't done very well. From $7.5k to $44k.
In 2023 they employed 34.5 full time equivalent permanent employees. Their senior cultural advisor is on about $100k/yr alone.
They obviously have a load of money coming from sources other than membership.
And if they truly are a DEI organisation then they'd split the extra membership revenue EQUITABLY between their employees. An extra $1k each -WOW!
Sorry Michael, I don't buy it.
They're just another useless woke organisation with a government license to raise money for doing bugger all. They've jumped on the cultural bandwagon because like all dumb animals they just follow along. And now they're preening themselves in the mirror of their own self-importance.
FSU seem to be on a march through the institutions. Just lately crowing about being behind the approach to Canadian billionaire Jim Grenon to push out the board of NZME. Seems to have come as a surprise to the membership. Waiting for the 'Make New Zealand Great Again' caps....
Says it all about wasting money - $K100 for a "cultural advisor" What a junket!!
Post a Comment