Never before has a human being had access to this amount of knowledge and the ability to communicate, and he has never, on the other hand, placed a large part of his life and decisions in the hands of technological systems that he does not know how they work, nor who determines their rules. With one click, he can access the world's libraries, follow events as they happen, and communicate with people thousands of kilometers away from him, but he can also find himself captive to a screen that takes over his time, and algorithms that draw for him the features of the world he sees and its boundaries.
Herein lies the paradox of the digital age: the greater our access to choices, the greater the ability of others to influence our choices. Has technology made us freer, or has it reshaped the means of controlling us?
*The era of artificial intelligence
In the age of artificial intelligence, the paradox is even more acute. Man can develop technologies that produce images, music, and texts, and help him accomplish complex tasks, but he is still unable to address humanitarian crises that push millions of people to hunger, displacement, deprivation, and death! As societal forces, companies, and countries compete to possess the latest technologies, the simplest forms of human solidarity sometimes decline. The problem is not the technology itself, but rather the priorities that govern its use, and the gap between what a person can accomplish technologically and what he is prepared to do for the sake of others, and for the sake of the ultimate goal: peace.
The repercussions of this transformation are not limited to politics and economics, but extend to human relations. Communication that has become available around the clock does not necessarily mean that we have become closer to each other. An individual may be surrounded by hundreds of virtual friends, but he lacks a real conversation or human relationship that gives him a sense of belonging.
*Loneliness in an era of crowding
Some researchers describe this phenomenon with concepts such as “technological loneliness” or “communication without communication.” Digital interaction, despite its advantages, may gradually replace face-to-face meetings and relationships that require listening, empathy, and physical presence. Concerns have also been raised about anxiety and distress associated with losing access to devices and apps. But what is most important is not to make general judgments about technology, but rather to understand how a tool designed to make our lives easier can turn into a source of dependency, stress, and isolation.
*Threat to freedom?
The issue goes beyond the boundaries of personal relationships to reach human freedom itself. The Internet, which opened the doors of knowledge to everyone, created, at the same time, a huge market to compete for “attention.” The issue is no longer simply a display of information, but rather determining what deserves to appear in front of the user according to his interests and inclinations, and what should remain out of his sight.
Many digital platforms operate on recommendation systems that analyze users' interests and behavior, then provide them with content to keep them connected for longer. These mechanisms may have clear benefits, as they help us discover material that suits our interests, but they may also trap us in closed circles that reproduce our ideas and positions, and reduce the opportunity to gain access to different opinions.
Thus, the question is no longer limited to whether we have the freedom to choose, but rather it becomes related to who determines the options that appear before us, and to the criteria that control their arrangement, and thus to a list of priorities that we did not set ourselves. If what we read and watch is influenced by algorithms whose working mechanisms we do not know, to what extent do our decisions remain independent?
Dan Gilmore, a professor specializing in digital media literacy and co-founder of the NewsCo/Lab initiative at Arizona State University, warns that governments and technology companies are using unaccountable surveillance tools and algorithms that threaten public freedoms. He believes that the institutions entrusted with protecting these freedoms, including the media, do not always perform their required role in confronting these abuses.
These concerns are particularly important in the democratic sphere. Digital technologies allow citizens to express their opinions, organize campaigns, access information, and hold authorities accountable, but they may also be used for surveillance, censorship, and manipulation of public opinion.
Miguel Moreno, a professor of philosophy at the Spanish University of Granada and a specialist in technology ethics, warns of the dangers of bias, manipulation, and arbitrary surveillance, whether practiced by government or private agencies.
*Digital geopolitics and weapon technology
The dangers of this transformation do not stop at the borders of individuals and their societies, but rather go beyond them to become a fundamental driver of global geopolitics. Technology, especially artificial intelligence, processing chips, and big data, has become the new field of competition between major powers and international blocs. Sovereignty is no longer measured only by geography and field military borders, but also by the extent to which the state possesses “digital sovereignty” and its independence in managing its technological infrastructure.
In this context, algorithms and digital platforms are no longer just means of communication, but have turned into tools of geopolitical influence, used to fight cyber wars, shape global public opinion, and direct regional and international narratives in a way that serves the interests of powerful countries. This reality places developing countries and societies that do not possess technology at a double risk. It finds itself an arena for power struggles that it has no tools for, and is vulnerable to a new type of “digital colonialism,” which reshapes the global balance of power and marginalizes the will of the people and their national gains.
*What does the United Nations say?
The United Nations says that digital technologies affect human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural, as they provide new means for defending and exercising rights, but they may become tools for violating them, through surveillance, censorship, “discriminatory” algorithms, and discriminatory automated decisions. Marginalized groups often bear the brunt of these practices.
The problem, then, is not that technology has an independent will that seeks to control humans, but rather that the power granted by data and algorithms is concentrated in the hands of a limited number of parties, while the user’s ability to understand the mechanisms of influence and resist them remains limited, meaning that he is often just a recipient.
This does not mean that the solution lies in rejecting technology or returning to the (impossible) world before the Internet. Digital tools have provided unprecedented opportunities for learning, working, and communicating, and artificial intelligence can enhance human capabilities, rather than detract from them. But realizing this potential requires greater transparency and accountability for the entities that manage the platforms, protection of personal data, and enhancing the ability of individuals to understand how to direct the content that reaches them. In short, it can be said that the whole matter requires “good intentions.”
Freedom is not only measured by the number of options available to us, but rather by our ability to make informed choices, know alternatives, and understand the forces that influence our decisions. Control in the digital age may not be based on preventing people from seeing the world, but rather on presenting a specific world to them and convincing them that it is the “real” world.
In the end, the real challenge is not to make the machine more intelligent, but to ensure that humans do not become less autonomous or less human as the machine becomes more “intelligent.” Technological progress, no matter how great it may be, cannot be a substitute for freedom, compassion, solidarity, and humanity. If algorithms are able to influence what we see, think, and choose, then restoring our free decision begins with a simple question: Do we use technology to expand our freedom, or do we allow it to throw us into the dungeon of dependency and control?
US President Donald Trump described Ukraine's resumption of its strikes on Russian oil refineries as "shameful," while sources said that the decision to limit the capabilities of a satellite system used by Kiev in its war against Moscow came from within the White House.
In an interview published on Thursday, Trump told Newsmax when asked about these attacks: “Well, I think this is a shame,” adding that they contribute to rising global energy prices.
The US President criticized his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, considering that he was less prepared than Russian President Vladimir Putin to reach a settlement that would end the war.
“This war must stop soon,” Trump said. “I think they both really want to finish it.” He added: “But I find that dealing with Zelensky is more difficult than dealing with Putin,” according to what was reported by Agence France-Presse.
Message slowing down the “StarShield” service
In turn, Reuters quoted two American officials and a Western official as saying that the decision to limit the capabilities of the satellite system that Ukraine uses for battlefield communications and drone operations came from within the White House.
The officials said that War Department leaders received a message stating the need to slow down the Starshield service, which is owned by SpaceX and is used by the Ukrainian military.
The officials, who requested to remain anonymous, did not specify who made the decision in the White House or who was responsible for implementing the order. The Pentagon is the largest customer of StarShield, which is the military version of the Starlink service.
Ukrainian officials said this week that military-spec Starlink receivers stopped working in Ukraine when they were installed on fast-moving objects, affecting the performance of Ukrainian drones based on their built-in guidance systems over Ukrainian territory.
A source in the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense said on Thursday that the receivers are currently working while in motion, but only at speeds of up to 160 kilometers per hour.
Pressure to stop refinery attacks
The temporary reduction in the capabilities of the vital telecommunications system occurred as President Donald Trump puts pressure on Kiev to stop its attacks on Russian refineries, which he said were responsible for the rise in energy prices that threatens his Republican Party's chances in the November midterm elections.
But experts say that the sharp rise in energy costs is mainly the result of the US-Israeli war with Iran, which in turn targeted energy facilities and made the vital Strait of Hormuz closed.
In response to a request for comment on the order to restrict the StarShield system, a senior US official said: “The president has never issued such a request.”
The White House did not respond to questions about whether other administration officials had made this request.
SpaceX developed the Starshield system specifically for government customers and entities related to national security, especially the Pentagon. The “StarShield” system relies on the “Starlink” satellite group.
Ukrainian officials said that these restrictions hindered strike missions against Russian forces and their logistical operations in the occupied territories, and slowed down interceptor drones used to shoot down “Shahed” aircraft launched by Russia.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said on Wednesday on the X platform that Starshield systems are owned by the US government and subject to its control, so any restrictions on speed or use are decided by the US military or the president.
SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment. Neither the Pentagon nor the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington responded to requests for comment.
The five permanent members of the Security Council are close to taking decisive decisions regarding recommending the election of a new Secretary-General of the United Nations to succeed the Portuguese António Guterres, whose second (last) term ends in 75 days.
The Security Council is scheduled to hold a sixth informal session behind closed doors to vote again on the remaining seven nominations in the race, and to vote “encouraging,” “discouraging,” or “no opinion” for former Costa Rican Vice President Rebecca Greenspan, Argentine Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Rafael Mariano Grossi, former Guyanese Foreign Minister Caroline Rodriguez Burkett, former Ugandan Speaker of the Assembly Olara Otunho, and former Senegalese President. Macky Sall, former Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Maria Fernanda Espinosa and Ecuadorian diplomat of Lebanese origin Yvonne Abdel Baqi.
Former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet withdrew from the competition shortly after the third round of voting.
Color-coded voting
With the sixth session, the Council will adopt two sets of ballot papers coded in one of two colors. The first set of red papers of the five permanent members: the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China. As for the second group, it consists of the blank cards of the ten elected countries: Denmark, Greece, Pakistan, Panama, Somalia, Bahrain, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Latvia and Liberia.
Any candidate must obtain at least nine “encouragement” votes, knowing that any red paper indicating “discouragement” will be tantamount to a veto by one of the permanent member states, thus eliminating any chance of the candidate in question remaining in the race.
All five previous votes were conducted using identical white ballot papers. The transition to different-colored papers means that the process of electing a new Secretary-General has entered a critical juncture, and perhaps decisive for appointing a successor to Guterres, whose term expires on January 1, 2027.
Greenspan opportunities
The fifth round of unofficial ballots, on October 7, failed to produce a near-unanimous candidate. Although Greenspan, clearly supported by Israel, maintained her lead in the race. However, her support rate declined to nine votes instead of the ten she received in the fourth ballot last September 29, when two “no opinion” votes disappeared, while the number of her opponents rose to six votes. In the absence of previously coded papers, it is difficult to know whether Russia, China, or both are placing a “veto” on her nomination, as is rumored in the internal corridors of the Security Council.
Grossi came in second place during the fifth round for the first time since the start of the polls on July 30, but with only six votes in favor, seven against, and two “no opinion” votes. Consequently, he has not yet received the minimum number of votes, nor does it appear that he is immune from the “veto,” noting that in the fourth round he received eight “encouragement” votes, seven “discouragement” votes, and zero “no opinion” votes. Therefore, his nomination is still subject to debate.
The most surprising drop in the fifth round was what happened to Rodriguez-Burquette, who posted her worst results in the five ballots; There were five votes of “encouragement,” nine of opposition, and one vote of “no opinion.” In the first ballot, it received nine “encouragement” votes, two “discouragement” votes, and four “no opinion” votes. The next three times, she received eight affirmative votes each.
As a result, former American diplomat Robert Wood wrote, “With Burkett facing a certain veto, the contest is now between Grossi and Greenspan.”
In a separate statement, Wood suggested that “Birkett’s poor performance reflects growing concern among governments about her ability to be impartial and effective” as a potential Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Diplomats report that President Trump's administration is expressing its opposition to Birkett in internal discussions.
None of the other four candidates achieved significant progress during the previous polls. Rather, there has been a greater tendency toward increased “discouragement.” Finally, Macky Sall received five votes, Maria Fernanda Espinosa received three votes, Olara Otono also received three votes, and Yvonne Abdel Baqi received zero encouraging votes.
This also means that Espinosa, Otono and Abdel Baqi are out of the race, knowing that the first three have not yet gained momentum that suggests that their chances are high.
Some experts believe that using the veto now may not completely eliminate a candidate; Because he can renegotiate with the country he suspects of using the veto, which is most likely China, Russia, and the United States. It excludes the use of veto power by France or Britain.
Candidate from Türkiye?
Diplomats at the United Nations and outside are discussing three possibilities: The first is that Greenspan or Grossi will receive decisive support this Thursday, paving the way for the issuance of a recommendation from the Security Council to the General Assembly, and giving the new Secretary-General of the United Nations sufficient time to prepare to take office.
The second possibility is that an unexpected new candidate enters the competition, giving Council members other options, which could allow for consensus among the five permanent members. Diplomats reported that the five permanent members would welcome new candidates, no matter how late the process is, which indicates that the current group does not arouse the interest of those with the “veto.” Diplomats leaked that Türkiye is considering nominating its citizen, the head of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Feridun Sinirlioglu.
The third possibility keeps the competition arena open between the current candidates until an agreement is reached.
While the ten elected members appear to be keen to avoid a vacuum in appointing a new Secretary-General of the United Nations before the end of Guterres' term, other diplomats say that the five permanent members may not hesitate to continue the process until the last minute, noting that Kofi Annan was chosen for this position only 18 days before the start of his term.
