The resolution was passed by consensus last Friday, but a minority of nations did put forward amendments. Authoritarian regimes including Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia, as well as democracies like South Africa and India suggested or supported amendments. Thomas Hughes, the executive director of Article 19, a charity that defends freedom of expression, said in a statement that his organization was "disappointed" that some countries "voted in favor of these hostile amendments to weaken protections for freedom of expression online."

Resolutions like this are not legally enforceable, but put pressure on governments and give credence to the actions of digital rights advocates around the world. The UN's decision to target internet shutdowns is particularly relevant, as governments have started freely using this method as a means of controlling citizens in what appear to be even minor matters.

Just in the last month social media sites have been throttled in Turkey after a terrorist attacks on Istanbul's airport; mobile internet has been shut down in Bahrain and India following local protests; and social media has been blocked in Algeria simply to stop students cheating on school tests. According to digital rights group Access Now, there were at least 15 internet shutdowns in 2015 around the world, and at least 20 just in 2016 so far.

Hughes described the resolution as a "much-needed response" to increased pressure on online freedoms. In a press statement, he said: "From impunity for the killings of bloggers to laws criminalizing legitimate dissent on social media, basic human rights principles are being disregarded to impose greater controls over the information we see and share online."

Correction July 13th, 05:26AM ET: The story has been changed to clarify the nature of the opposition to the bill. Countries did not 'oppose' the bill, as this article previously stated, but suggested amendments that some experts thought weakened its language.