This Petition Means Well, but It's Too Weak for Americans to Sign

Tweet

I'm not sure if we should sign it yet, because I'm not even sure what its PURPOSE is! The 'petition' reads: "We, as Digital Citizens, will not stand by silently as governments weaponize our shared online community—endangering individuals, organizations, and entire countries. In our digital world we create, connect, express ourselves and improve our lives and the lives of others. Our online community must not be a battlefield. We demand Digital Peace. "Together, we will use our voices and our votes to defend the global digital society on which we depend. Our world leaders must act now to protect us. "There is no peace without Digital Peace." https://digitalpeace.microsoft.com/ 'Signing the Petition' is something you do when you agree with the letter attached to it, yes? (The same way "The (U.S.) Declaration of Independence" was essentially 'a petition to King George III of Great Britain,' telling the king to "let my people go") But who is the petition written to? They don't get any more-specific than 'our world-leaders.' And what do they want our world-leaders to do? Again, not more-specific than 'protect us' (though there is some text above 'the petition' that says we call upon our world-leaders to "create rules-of-the-road to protect our digital society"). I suppose it's asking 'lawmakers' to make "sharing our information without 'express written consent' (i.e. if you give them permission to share your personal-information with one other group, it would not give them permission to share with any other other group without separate permission-given)" illegal. I'm not sure how else someone could "weaponize" our information. But I'm reminded of something astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson mentioned on Real Time with Bill Maher---that military-people have been using 'the discoveries of Science' for their violent intentions almost as long as either-one existed! (terrorists using Google Maps to plan missile-launches, military-use of GPS-tracking ... even SPUTNIK was built in a bomb's metal casing!) But--like 'Master PhiloDoctor' Tyson says about the large amount of Science that came from the JudeoChristian Church (tho he doesn't specifically "believe there is a God")--the Science is good, no matter where it came from. Tyson also remembers how 'the war-efforts back in his childhood' were seen as "a bad thing." But then he did some history-research and saw how people in previous wartimes (WW1, WW2) saw the war as "good!"---obviously not 'a happy fun-time' activity, but "good" like a hospital when you're sick (you don't want to be there, but sometimes you would rather be sick 'in the hospital' than sick 'on the street.') Anyway (steering this back to 'the Digital Peace Petition'), the only way I can think (that people could 'weaponize' our personal info) is largely "the mind-trick" of statistics. For instance: If I voted for a candidate who then went on to commit crimes against humanity (and/or was later discovered to have committed many of these crimes in the past), stat-users can 'weaponize' those votes into "the accusation that the voters 'support' (and aid-&-abet) the criminal in the political office." But I ... I don't see 'those protections' specified in the petition, so I'm not going to sign it. Besides; if they agree that we are "a democracy," shouldn't we rather sign 'a pledge to BE peaceful' rather than 'a request that our Masters not whip us so hard'?