With Trump’s presidential victory in the rearview mirror, many people have begun asking questions about the future. What is the world going to look like in five, 10, 20 years? Luckily for everyone, the United Nations is proposing a mandatory, unsolicited solution for the future of digital technology, which includes digital IDs, censorship, and mass surveillance.

According to a report from Reclaim the Net, a committee of the United Nations has adopted two resolutions, “one of them aimed at the [U.N.'s] Department of Global Communications establishing and strengthening ‘partnerships with new and traditional media to address hate speech narratives.’”

While the United Nations may not seem like an immediate threat at present, it has posed itself as a forum for these types of ideas to be flushed out and developed.

Reclaim the Net reports that the resolution of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee reaffirms the U.N.’s commitment to “Our Common Agenda” and the “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), UN Pact for the Future, and Global Digital Compact,” all of which are plans for the vision of the future proposed by the United Nations.

“Our Common Agenda” reportedly “proposes bank account-linked digital ID.” One of the goals of this resolution is “promoting a trustworthy Internet by introducing accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content.” The bank account-linked digital ID is one of the proposed solutions for combatting misinformation.

Another policy brief related to Our Common Agenda makes this even more explicit: “Digital IDs linked with bank or mobile money accounts can improve the delivery of social protection coverage and serve to better reach eligible beneficiaries. Digital technologies may help to reduce leakage, errors and costs in the design of social protection programmes.” Essentially, the digital ID would serve as a deterrent for the further spread of “misinformation.”

The resolution was met with various degrees of enthusiasm. For example, Reclaim the Net said Italy’s representative advocated for “the use of AI in combatting ‘misinformation and disinformation.’” The U.K.’s representative was likewise on board with increased U.N. censorship, according to Reclaim the Net: “The U.K. remains committed to digging its heels in when it comes to characterizing ‘misinformation’ as a major threat.”

The U.K.’s support of these policies is unsurprising in light of the national effort to pass speech codes and digital policing frameworks, such as the Online Safety Bill, which Reclaim the Net says gives “sweeping new censorship powers to the UK’s Secretary of State and its communications regulator, the Office of Communications.”

Some representatives also proposed solutions for the punishment of individuals who disseminate what is deemed to be hate speech and misinformation. For example, Pakistan’s representative not only wanted a system of deterrence, but also a system for “censoring and demonetizing content algorithmically,” according to Reclaim the Net. A digital ID linked to bank accounts would serve as a solution to both of these demands.

On the other hand, Argentina’s representative expressed concern that “the term ‘hate speech’ can be abused by those wishing to stifle ‘pluralistic debate,'” according to Reclaim the Net. This did not sway any opinions, however, and the resolution was passed. Argentina’s representative was only able to “dissociate himself” from the parts of the resolution relevant to the attacks on free speech.

It is easy to dismiss the United Nations and its plans for global governance. They often sound far-fetched or way too extreme to put into action. However, even supposedly free countries like the U.K. are beginning to implement hate-speech laws and guards against misinformation of their own accord. While the United Nations may not seem like an immediate threat at present, it has posed itself as a forum for these types of ideas to be flushed out and developed. Therefore, the recent triumph of free speech figures in the United States should not be taken for granted, and we must remain vigilant in this age of increasing censorship and surveillance.