When the internet first began to proliferate a few decades ago, it was seen as a great democratizing force. Anyone at all could publish content and have their voice be heard. Of course, we know that as the internet has evolved, governments and other entities have regulated and even censored content for a variety of reasons. The internet, while still a veritable Wild West in some jurisdictions, has been effectively tamed in others. In fact, depending on where you are, large portions of it have been entirely blocked from view.
The rationales behind censorship are varied. Some authoritarian governments do it to exert control over the dissemination of information and to quiet dissent. Some do it in the name of protecting the citizenry. Outside of governmental influence, some social networks and tech companies feel compelled to remove content or block users that may run afoul of the law or their terms and conditions. Of course, there are varying degrees to which internet censorship affects the average person’s life, and it almost always depends on where they live.
Direct Censorship to Exercise Governmental Power
When you think of internet censorship, it’s likely that a few examples come to mind. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea are often high on the list. To put it simply, these countries block websites to limit the flow of information, control the narrative, and squash dissent. The internet is a supremely effective outlet for broadcasting information that runs counter to the status quo. To maintain an established order, governments control what information can be seen, surveil and silence detractors, and mitigate widespread dissent.
The Chinese government is one of the most notorious examples of the successful implementation of internet censorship. Their “Great Firewall” had its origins in 1996 and the complex system that keeps citizens on government-controlled internet portals has been fortifying itself since then.
Western sites like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were all blocked in the 2000s. The government-run search engine, Baidu, is also very selective with what it shows Chinese netizens.
According to The Washington Post, a Baidu search for “Tiananmen tank man” (a central figure of the pro-democracy protests in the 1980s) yields only results that discuss Tiananmen Square as a nice place to visit. Recently, the government began blocking users (even those from overseas) on the social media and messaging app, WeChat, for expressing support of the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement.
But, the Chinese government is far from the only entity that practices internet censorship. In fact, there is growing concern that internet censorship as a method for maintaining governmental power is on the rise. According to the Freedom on the Net 2019 study by the non-partisan, pro-democracy thinktank Freedom House, 33 of the 65 countries they assessed have been declining in overall internet freedom since June 2018.
Censorship through Legal Tactics
Perhaps more disturbing is the Freedom of the Net study’s finding that 71% of the assessed countries have seen arrests or imprisonments for individuals who have posted political, religious, or social content deemed objectionable. Many governments have been using libel and defamation laws to target political dissidents or even critical citizens who post online.
The governments of countries like Hungary and Lebanon have laws that allow them to target citizens who are critical of the government or specific politicians within it. They have also made it more difficult for opposition news outlets to continue posting material online.
Leaders in Russia and Turkey have also received condemnation from the international community for their repeated jailing of journalists and other critical voices. These countries have even banned Wikipedia so that access to free information about the rest of the world cannot be spread easily. This in-turn causes people to rely on creating Wikipedia pages in other languages such as English or French since access to other languages is restricted.
In this way, some nations are not actually censoring content directly, but they are creating a culture of self-censorship through intimidation. If a citizen fears reprisal for voicing a negative opinion about the government, they will often keep their thoughts to themselves. Discussing her own repressive government, Syrian journalist Loubna Mrie suggests that “Growing up in a police state, you grow up to believe that the walls have ears and anything you might say might lead you to jail.”
These types of legal tactics have also forced opposition newspapers and blogs to fold, limiting anti-government voices on the internet.
Censorship and Big Tech Corporations
State censorship and the punishment of online political opposition are not facets of everyday life for everyone across the globe. For instance, the United States was listed as “free” (the other categories were “partly free” and “not free”) on the Freedom of the Net 2019 report. But, that doesn’t mean that censorship of some variety doesn’t take place in the U.S. It’s usually media companies who do it.
Discussing the effectiveness of corporate censorship, Jillian York, the director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, noted that “[hate speech is] generally not illegal in the United States (for First Amendment reasons), but most companies place restrictions on it. This might seem fair to many people who certainly don’t want to see hateful, racist statements turn up in their feeds.”
This type of “censorship” is designed to protect a user base and to keep extremist ideologies from proliferating on a social media network’s platform. Sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Google all use algorithms and content moderators to axe extremist or offensive content. This is valuable, but it can also place these sites in moral quandaries as they become the arbiters of not only dangerous content but what constitutes truth as a concept.
Indeed, Facebook, Twitter, and Google all came under fire from Congress for their handling of the Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election, because they were too lax at weeding out disinformation. And it is hard for an algorithm or content moderator to differentiate between regular posters and bad faith actors looking to spread propaganda.
But, propaganda on social media may be the new workaround for domestic and foreign state agents looking to influence elections and policy.
So, in places where internet censorship is explicitly illegal and effectively rare, we’re seeing disinformation and propaganda takes its place. Of course, that doesn’t mean that tech corporations are doing nothing to stop it. It’s just going to take some collaboration to ensure the future of a widely available and appropriately regulated internet.
