Fact check: Https://zenit.org/2024/08/20/new-un-cybercrime-treaty-opens-door-to-pedophilia-and-legalizes-child-sexting/

1. Summary of the results

The UN Cybercrime Convention was indeed adopted on December 24, 2024, with a planned signing ceremony in Hanoi, Vietnam in 2025 ^[1]. The treaty contains controversial provisions regarding content involving minors, specifically allowing countries to potentially decriminalize certain forms of sexually explicit content that does not depict an "existing person" ^{[2] [2]}. This decision was supported by 91 countries, led by the US and EU, while 51 countries opposed these provisions ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original headline omits several crucial pieces of context:

• The treaty's primary stated purpose is to provide comprehensive measures to prevent and combat cybercrime while including human rights safeguards ^[1], including protecting children from online sexual violence and facilitating international cooperation ^[3].
• There are broader concerns beyond the child protection issues, including:
• Potential enabling of surveillance and targeting of journalists, activists, and marginalized groups ^[4]
• Risk of authoritarian measures and misuse of investigative powers across borders ^[5]
• Specific opposition came from multiple countries including Nicaragua, Pakistan, Iran, and Congo, with Russia questioning whether the treaty protects criminals or victims ^{[6] [6]}

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The headline presents an oversimplified and potentially misleading interpretation:

• While the treaty does contain provisions that could allow for decriminalization of certain content ^[7], it specifically pertains to content not depicting "existing persons" or actual abuse ^[2]
• The headline fails to mention that this is part of a larger comprehensive cybercrime treaty with multiple objectives ^[3]
• Beneficiaries of different narratives:
• Civil society groups and organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation benefit from highlighting potential human rights risks ^[4]
• Law enforcement agencies and governments benefit from expanded investigative powers granted by the treaty ^[3]
• Opposition countries may benefit politically from portraying Western nations (US/EU) as supporting controversial provisions ^[2]

The reality appears more nuanced than the headline suggests, involving complex international negotiations and competing priorities between law enforcement capabilities and human rights protections.