A good settlement is better than a bad lawsuit. Thus, lawmakers decided to adjourn the vote on the cybercrime bill. A wise decision given that the scope of the text moves us away from democratic standards and closer to North Korea. Some even find the bill simply oppressive. Everyone is monitored, particularly digital communications. Moreover, the bill seems to conflate cybercrime with freedom of expression and press. It is even a confusion of definitions. Cybercrime concerns attacks on systems, online fraud and scams, and offenses related to content and data. Yet the bill monitors all digital communications of all citizens with heavy penalties for those who dare ignore its provisions. The State, through the Digital Protection and Investigation Unit, equips itself with a surveillance camera with 360-degree rotation and instant access to user data. A highly restrictive and burdensome bill for citizens. The bill goes against popular demands from a year ago. More freedom, less corruption, more power cuts and water shortages—these drove the Gen Z movement that swept away the Rajoelina regime. Many inconsistencies also exist in the text, as users risk prosecution for unverified digital posts while the State is not obliged to make public the information it holds. The bill on this aspect has been gathering dust in the National Assembly for quite some time. That said, fighting cybercrime is nothing wrong. We have nothing against protecting citizens, businesses, institutions, and digital systems. On the contrary, it should have been done long ago as in other countries. All things considered, the bill appears to have political aims in muzzling the right to information, whether through media or digital platforms. Lawmakers have fortunately, for once, grasped the danger posed by this bill and potential public reaction. Step back to vote better. Thus the parliamentarians have decided. Sylvain Ranjalahy