Rebuilding solidarity and trust: The APC community reflects on the cancellation of RightsCon and learnings moving forward

The shock of the cancellation of RightsCon in Zambia this year is still reverberating amongst civil society activists who are grappling with the implications for their advocacy work.

Like other networks across the globe, APC was impacted by this turn of events that disrupted the plans of many of its members, as well as staff; it wasn’t just a financial blow, but the loss of an opportunity to meet and strategise face-to-face, to network with donors and other organisations, and raise awareness about key advocacy issues that needed to be pushed forward on the global digital rights agenda. 

While RightsCon 2025 was hosted in Taipei, Taiwan, AccessNow attributed the cancellation at least in part to behind-the-scenes pressure from China for Taiwanese participants to be excluded from the event in Zambia. This wasn’t necessarily something new for civil society. APC member in Taiwan Open Cultural Foundation (OCF) explained that Taiwanese civil society has seen China react strongly even to seemingly non-political international events when it believes its sovereignty claims or geopolitical interests are being challenged. JCA-NET, a member based in Japan, also pointed to several similar restrictions on participation in events in the past: “It is not uncommon for major powers to block foreign participation in important international conferences,” the organisation’s Toshi said. “Last year, the United States blocked PLO Chairman Abbas from attending the UN General Assembly. Japan also refused to issue visas to some participants for the 2023 IGF in Kyoto.” 

Neither was having a government change its mind mid-stream something extraordinary, even for AccessNow – in 2023 Costa Rica failed to grant visas-on-arrival for many RightsCon participants, despite a prior commitment from its government. 

But having an international event of this size “postponed” by a government just days before it was due to start – which the Special Rapporteur Gina Romero called a “clear violation of the rights to freedom of assembly, association, and expression” – was, for many, unprecedented.

It was, as one APC member from South Asia summed up, a “sobering reminder that digital rights work does not happen in a neutral space.”

A crisis of trust

While many in the APC community expressed solidarity with the organisers, local partners (who are often the first to bear the consequences of geopolitical pressure) and everyone affected by it, the situation also prompted a reflection on what this reveals about current challenges. A widespread online debate focused on how the cancellation had exposed the vulnerability of countries in Africa with a dependency on foreign investment and funding (deals by both China and the US were mentioned), but for many in APC, it also spoke of the collapse of the whole ecosystem of rights.

“Political deviations have become extreme and a consensus over the universality of human rights no longer exists,” said Pavel Antonov from Bluelink, an organisation based in Bulgaria and advocating for digital rights in the European Union. “National governments can no longer be trusted on their commitments. It’s a wake-up call for human rights defenders around the world.”

In this light it was important not to think of the Zambian government’s actions as a case of African exceptionalism, that is, as something that ”only happens in Africa”. For APC’s programmes manager and internet governance lead Valeria Betancourt, while the cancellation exposed the tension between “sovereignty and autonomy” on the one hand and “economic, military and political dependence” on the other, it was a tension that affected Global South countries across regions. Even the banning of Taiwanese participants was a “familiar pattern that many of us lived with for years,” said someone from APC’s community who is part of the diasporic Taiwanese community. 

They referred to China’s use of economics, diplomatic ties and “unspoken boundaries” to silence dissent. “Decisions are made quietly, accepted quickly, and absorbed into the background – until one day, when you fill out a form, look for your nationality, and the closest option you can find is ‘Taiwan, province of China’,” they said. “It doesn't always shout censorship when it's this quiet.” 

OCF believes this means the digital rights community needs to pay closer attention to geopolitics, including international relations and authoritarian states’ own threat perceptions. “Issues such as surveillance technology exports or digital authoritarianism may be understood by digital rights actors as human rights concerns, but from China’s perspective, they may also be seen as attempts to undermine its strategic partnerships or economic agenda,” they explained. This means that an event like RightsCon may be perceived as a much greater political threat by countries such as China than international organisers might expect. “If we do not take this seriously, our risk assessment will remain incomplete, and civic space will become easier to disrupt.” 

Their insights from Taiwan could prove valuable in other parts of the world, given that a similar pattern is emerging. This cancellation should prompt a deeper reflection within the international digital rights community on assessing risks not only to the communities for which they advocate, but also to themselves as political actors.

“This happened to Zambia now, but this could easily happen in the US or an EU member state,” warned Antonov.

And the signs are there. “I work in the private sector for economic reasons but also for political reasons,” said one anonymous APC associate also based in the EU. “I do not work in the NGO space or in human rights anymore as I am an immigrant in an EU country with a very restricted civic space. If I expressed my views about Palestine and certain other conflicts I might lose funding and residence. I am not happy to be a victim of chilling effects, but my family and children are currently more important. A talk at the University in my city was cancelled today and raided by the police.”

The question then becomes: Where do activists find a sense of certainty, of at least something they can rely on? Who can they trust? 

Communities, solidarity and creativity 

For many in APC, the answer lies in putting faith in their own political commitment to building bottom-up structures driven by communities. “As a fundamental principle, we should not equate the state with the diverse people living within its borders,” said Toshi. “It is important to prioritise these diverse people above all else, rather than the state.”

Both YZ Y’au from the Centre for Information Technology and Development (CITAD) based in Nigeria, and his colleague Carlos Baca, who works on the Local Networks initiative run by APC and Rhizomatica, were going to use RightsCon as an opportunity to advocate for community-centred connectivity initiatives (CCCIs). While Y’au drew attention to the need for “collective action” and “grassroots mobilisation”, for both solidarity with communities was important: “In contexts where civic space is increasingly restricted, CCCIs can help build more resilient, participatory and locally grounded digital ecosystems, while also strengthening collaboration, solidarity and autonomy across communities and regions,” Baca said. 

“Digital rights advocacy must be rooted in communities, not only in capital cities or international forums,” said the member from South Asia. “When physical spaces are closed, solidarity must find other routes. When dialogue is constrained, community voices must become louder.” 

It was as important for APC to strengthen what Sadaf Khan, who leads APC’s Safety for Voices project, called “transnational solidarity”. Khan found inspiration in the experiences of feminist movements which showed how resilience could be creatively sustained across borders through “collective care, accompaniment, feminist friendships”.

“At a time of escalating attacks and repression, it is critical to continue building spaces for shared learning, documentation, storytelling, advocacy and collective strategy,” she said. 

A similar “creativity and adaptability of groups around the world” was important to Betancourt. This offered an energy that digital rights organisations could draw on by “expanding synergies and bridges regionally and globally” with different movements and coalitions.

Karla Velasco, from APC’s Women’s Rights Programme, also expressed the need to reach out to others, listening, reading, learning, questioning and raising our collective voices. For her, now more than ever, our freedom of expression is severely restricted, surveillance has increased and spaces that we once considered safe are no longer so. “It is in situations like this one that we need to cherish and fight for the spaces where we can have such intimate discussions,” they said. Creating such an intimate space to discuss tech-facilitated gender-based violence was precisely the programme's plan for this year's RightsCon.

For one APC member, this bridge-building and exploration of new synergies may even open up fresh opportunities for alliances with governments who have not been particularly vocal, but have nevertheless been quietly committed to their work on digital and human rights in their countries: “Maybe we can leverage the publicity about the cancellation of RightsCon to identify a nation that is not afraid to move forward with a commitment to digital and human rights, and who is as committed as we are to building our power,” they said.

Pavitra Ramanujam, who leads the Social and Environmental Justice Programme at APC agreed: “While some traditional allies may no longer be reliable, there may be greater opportunities to work with actors that are more open to engaging on rights-based approaches to digital governance, including certain states in the Global South,” she said. 

The cost of participation 

Part of this re-thinking how solidarity could best be actualised also raises the question of how expensive it is to participate in conferences such as RightsCon – especially in the context of the currently strained funding environment. 

“The cancellation of RightsCon imposes a significant financial burden on civil society organisations across the board, but in particular the ones in the Global South,” said Betancourt. It is not only organisations in the Global South who are struggling to find the resources to participate in the many forums that happen each year. While JAC-NET had competing advocacy priorities, and the language of the event was a barrier, RightsCon was simply too expensive for them to attend in-person despite being based in Japan. 

For some this offered a moment to pause and reflect, a chance to ask: Can things be done differently? 

There was a need to “become more collaborative within the digital rights movement itself, particularly in how limited resources are used,” said Ramanujam. 

“As civil society organisations, we must work to avoid duplicating efforts, build on each other’s strengths, and work more strategically based on our different positions and capacities within the broader ecosystem.”

“I would like to see international and regional digital rights organisations and networks come together and figure out how regional and global rights convenings can build on each other,” said Chat Garcia Ramilo, APC’s Director. She mentioned several annual regional convenings “spearheaded by like-minded civil society organisations” to illustrate her point. Apart from the Digital Rights Asia-Pacific Assembly, which attracts activists, academics, techies and policy makers in that region, three of them were held in Africa alone: the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAFRICA), the Digital Rights and Inclusion Forum, and Bread & Net, which bills itself as the leading digital rights ”unconference” in West and North Africa. 

“Organising and participating in these convenings on a regular basis requires a huge amount of resources – people, money, time, etc. – at a time when funding for digital rights work is shrinking and safety and security threats to organising and participation are mounting,” she said.

“Continuing global and regional digital rights convenings every year is going to be unsustainable – both from the perspective of financial resources required as well as the capacity of organisations to organise and participate in these vital spaces that the movement needs.” 

What Garcia Ramilo sees as necessary is to find ways of connecting these spaces with the overall goal of strengthening the digital rights movement and pushing back on a “shrinking environment”. 

“There is so much knowledge, experience and good will to build on,” she added. “A process that brings together organisations as peers can only strengthen solidarity, which we sorely need.” 

The right to spaces for organising 

Most in the APC community nevertheless also emphasised how important forums such as RightsCon amongst others including the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) were for organising around digital rights. 

For Zaituni Njovu, from the Tanzania-based organisation Zaina Foundation, they allowed momentum in the digital rights movement to be built. Movements are stronger when they stay connected so that important conversations can be continued, Njovu said. 

“In-person gatherings are critical moments for building trust and collaboration in the digital rights community,” agreed APC’s michelle shawna. They were going to use RightsCon to highlight findings from research with environmental defenders and communities who were attacked online and targeted by disinformation campaigns in Brazil, Mexico, Kenya and Philippines. For them the upcoming IGF in Kenya offered an important opportunity to reflect on a context which was “increasingly dire” for internet governance. 

“Digital rights are not a side issue; they are central to democracy, dignity and justice in South Asia,” said the APC member from South Asia. “RightsCon may not have taken place as planned, but the issues it represents remain urgent.” 

“We need to continue finding, creating and advocating for these spaces, acknowledging and supporting the range of expressions and reactions, even if we don't fully agree with all parts of it,” another member from the region said. “These spaces are crucial to exchange ideas, learn from each other, get inspired but also to demonstrate collective power.” 

For one APC member it was precisely this demonstration of collective power that was evident in the Zambian government’s reaction to RightsCon, even though the outcome was devastating for many organisations, including AccessNow: “This just shows that our missions are working. We must be having a strong impact if entire governments are afraid of who we're bringing to the table,” they said. 

Some lessons for moving forward

As we assess the impact of this year’s RightsCon cancellation, the APC network is also reflecting on the lessons learned and the tools already at our disposal to help us move forward. Overall, a call to share learnings and strengthen joint action emerged as a common thread across many reflections within the APC network.

According to OCF, Taiwanese civil society has extensive experience with Chinese pressure in international spaces, while partners in Africa, Asia and other regions have their own knowledge of how economic dependency, diplomatic pressure and local political constraints shape civic space. “Bringing these experiences together can help the digital rights community build more realistic risk assessments, better contingency planning, and stronger mutual support mechanisms,” it noted.

It believes that organisations can remain resilient by treating this moment not only as a crisis, but also as an opportunity to strengthen their shared understanding of authoritarian influence. OCF’s own experience shows that international solidarity should not only mean supporting communities that are already recognised as targets of repression: “It should also mean helping international organisations, conveners, funders and advocacy networks recognise that they themselves can become direct targets of authoritarian pressure. This requires more cross-regional learning.”

The Women of Uganda Network (WOUGNET) emphasises the need for solidarity with those most affected, the continuity of critical conversations through alternative spaces, and a collective commitment to advancing feminist, rights-based digital futures. 

“Despite the disruption, the work must continue by adapting, collaborating and ensuring inclusive participation even without in-person convening,” said WOUGENT’s Sandra Aceng. 

For her, resilience and international solidarity require intentional, collective action that is rooted in trust, shared values and lived realities. It also means ensuring that technology is governed with accountability, communities are protected from harm, and marginalised voices are at the centre of advocacy.

From the Zaina Foundation, Njovu similarly argues that by continuing joint advocacy, knowledge sharing and cross-border partnerships, the movement can strengthen its collective voice and ensure that no organisation or community feels isolated. “Digital rights challenges such as internet shutdowns, censorship and attacks on activists are growing, but so is the strength of communities working together to defend democracy and human rights.”

* With contributions from Maja Romano and Débora Prado