Ever read any of the Man-Kzin Wars books?

If not, check them out. Very short version of the beginning:
Distant future, the world is run by the UN: it is THE World Government in all ways. Including the maintenance of and- very vital point here- the teaching of history. It had been determined that it was a Bad Thing for the peasantspeople to have unfettered access to history as They Will Get Bad Ideas.

So all history taught in schools has been edited and rewritten to serve the purposes of the UN. There were never any wars, no, just occasional international arguments back in the inefficient days of national sovereignty(which was done away with very quickly as the UN is so much better); weapons? no, just misused tools; and the only time people are violent is when they have a mental disturbance and need treatment. Competitive games have pretty much been done away with because people who compete and try to win are more difficult to controlguide in the proper paths of life. And anyone who discovers something of past history or turns out to be unwilling to be properly guided disappears into prison camps where they can't infect others.

What's one of the essentials to even approach, let alone run, such a system? Control- as close to absolute as possible- of information. So the UN controls the phones, the data networks, all of it, with constant monitoring for words or phrases that might indicate someone stepping off the reservation. Someone gets caught at such, reaction ranges from a visit from a 'counselor' to nudge them back to the correct thought patterns to a warning to you being packed away.

What brought this to mind was a comment on a radio show a bit ago about all the 'using your cell phone will give you cancer'-type warnings. Somebody said you could make an argument that some people don't want us using a lot of our communications systems so much because it means we're passing information along without it being approved.

Possible? Hell, anything is if you're willing to argue it. Likely? In this case I don't think so. But something that is not 'likely' but is happening is attempts to control this here innernets. The UN keeps having hearings about how they should be in overall control, and I do not believe they have our own good in mind. Just like they want all personal firearms banned(only Minions of Government should be allowed such things), the bureaucrats and wannabe-tyrants want our information controlled. And our communications. And they've got lots of buttmonkeys who want to help.

Like all those 'professional journalists' who get in such a snit over blogs. We aren't one of Them, so we cannot be trusted to handle information properly. Of course, their idea of 'properly' means "We decide what you need to hear about, and in what form, and with what slant." So having a bunch of unlettered commonersuntrained non-journalists digging things up and passing information around and factchecking the ass of the 'professionals' just Should Not Be Done. Or rather, Should Not Be Allowed. After all, we don't have the 'layers of editors'(who either don't know their ass from a hole in the ground or have a viewpoint to push), we don't have the 'training in ethics'(which doesn't keep them from violating those ethics on a regular basis, and defending themselves and their cohorts for doing so). And having the UN, which is also so 'progressive'-minded, in charge of the net would be quite helpful.

Added: managed to locate this:

Q: Do you think technology is changing [journalism]? That a good reporter will always find a venue because there are so many media outlets now?

Thomas: No, but I do think it is kind of sad when everybody who owns a laptop thinks they're a journalist and doesn't understand the ethics. We do have to have some sense of what's right and wrong in this job. Of how far we can go. We don't make accusations without absolute proof. We're not prosecutors. We don't assume.

Q: So if there's this amateur league of journalists out there, trying to do what you do...

Thomas: It's dangerous.

So are you, you sorry old bitch.

And let us not forget the islamists. They hate and detest the UN and all the other boards and committees of modern society, but they're quite happy to use them. They take the standard "Anything bad said about any muslim or act thereof is proof you are a racist/bigot/want to destroy Islam!" and run with it to the EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security or the Canadian “Human Rights Commissions” to screw over anybody who dares to speak in any way they don't like.

Do I think the UN would love to control and censor the use of the internet? Hell, yes, just like they want ownership of arms banned. Would a lot of journalists like it? Hell, yes. And a lot of national governments have been working at in on their own, usually in connection with some version of 'human rights and hate crimes' bullcrap from the EU, the UN or both. In Canada, quoting a passage from the Bible that offends someone can get you jailed. Mark Steyn has their damned 'Human Rights Council' trying to figure a way to, metaphorically or literally, keelhaul him for daring to write something that upsets the islamists. And the terminally PC go running right along with it; after all, to them 'free speech' means 'speech which we approve of and doesn't hurt the feelings of any protected species', and since they can't get everyone to agree to censor themselves, it's necessary to have the government do it.

Long ago in the 'citizen journalist vs. professional' arguments someone pointed out that bloggers are like the pamphleteers of the Revolutionary War. As a general thing I like being associated with such: just as they drove the British authorities to fury, we collectively- and some in particular- do the same to governments and tyrants- current, wannabe and information type- worldwide. Because one man or woman standing on a soapbox or doorstep telling people about something has a quite small audience, and is fairly easy to shut up if a government or thugs so decide; someone with a digital soapbox calling journalists and politicians to account and spreading information has a much larger audience and is NOT easy to shut up.

And I like that.