💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~oxymoronist › media11.gmi captured on 2022-03-01 at 15:26:03. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2022-04-28)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
In this part we discuss forms of internet censorship, including self-censoring.
We often hear about authoritarian regimes and their censoring of the internet. This takes various forms, from blocking certain domains to temporarily shutting down or throttling internet access.
The heavily restricted access in China is notorious with their so called Great Firewall of China blocking several of the domains that are among the most accessed in the West and many other parts of the world. According to a published and regularly updated list, these include:
... and a lot more, including a large number of pornography, cryptocurrency trading, and file sharing sites. Of particular relevance to this media guide is the fact that a large number of news sites, be they mainstream pro Western or dissident independent media, are unlikely to be accessible from within the Great Firewall.
https://en.greatfire.org/search/domains
Currently, about 16400 domains are listed as 100 % blocked, but the list spans 1463 pages of hundred items per page, and most of the analysed domains have been censored at some point in time but are not necessarily currently blocked. In fact, several of the listed domains may be available under an alternative domain name, perhaps in restricted versions. So many domains are being blocked that one cannot easily imagine what the internet looks like from within the great firewall. And perhaps there are Chinese domains that cannot be viewed from the outside too?
It is perhaps not in the interest of the censoring party to announce openly exactly what is being censored, or how it is censored. Volunteers inside a country where there is internet censorship may try to access domains of interest and report about their failure or success, but this method provides limited coverage, and may also risk the volunteer's safety.
Methods for remote measurements have been developed that make it possible to determine if two hosts can reach eachother over the internet.
https://censoredplanet.org/censoredplanet
In a report from Censored Planet from November 2020, they found censorship events in Egypt, Iran, Sri Lanka, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe, but also in a few unsuspected countries, including Israel, Japan, Poland, Italy, and Norway. Some of these events are correlated with unrest or protests, but several of them have unknown causes.
In 56 countries, officials arrested or convicted people for their online speech. Governments suspended internet access in at least 20 countries, and 21 states blocked access to social media platforms, most often during times of political turmoil such as protests and elections.
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2021/global-drive-control-big-tech
The report finds China to be the worst country for internet freedom, and places Iceland and Estonia at the top. They mention cases of journalists, or general internet users, who have been physically attacked or arrested for online activity, typically in authoritarian countries or in places with unrest. One looks in vain for a mention of the process against Julian Assange, or the imprisonment of Craig Murray for allegedly making "jigsaw identification" of certain witnesses possible through a blog post ... No, this organisation apparently is in the business of pointing its finger at states that are in Washington's disfavour. Not to say that their analysis is flawed in general; they make several relevant observations about possible consequences of regulation of social media or other internet companies, of free speech regulations, and surveillance, but any omissions of criticism against Western countries must be noted.
We may not hear much about freedom of expression in India outside the country, but they have their own Internet Freedom organisation. One of the problems they address is that some courts have continued to apply a law that is no longer valid.
The Indian legal system contains a number of provisions which limit free expression. Some - like the erstwhile Section 66A - are laws specifically made to censor online speech. We oppose vague, medium specific laws that have a chilling effect on online speech.
Website blocking today is carried out in a secretive process in which authors and end users of content do not get notices or an opportunity to respond. Secret orders are passed which deprive persons of legal remedies.
Internet Freedom Foundation on censorship
Alan Macleod writes in a Mintpress article about the Open Technology Fund (OTF) and their role in the Tor and Signal projects:
The OTF describes itself as “an independent non-profit organization committed to advancing global Internet freedom,” adding that it “supports projects focused on counteracting repressive censorship and surveillance, enabling citizens worldwide to exercise their fundamental human rights online.”
There is strong evidence, however, to suggest that the Open Technology Fund is not what it claims to be: that it is neither independent nor truly committed to online freedom and privacy.
Macleod continues:
... it is directly funded and controlled by the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM), a government body responsible for overseeing U.S.-funded state media outlets overseas, including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Voice of America and Radio and TelevisiĂłn MartĂ.
Internet freedom, according to the OTF, is explicitly defined in relation to access to U.S. state propaganda arms. If individuals in a country have access to Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, then their internet is free. If not, they live in a totalitarian state.
Tech-savvy persons may be aware of security problems in supposedly anonymising services such as Tor and onion servers, at least if used carelessly. Apart from that, there is this follow-the-money argument that Macleod pursues:
This long and sordid history certainly raises questions about the legitimacy and safety of the OTF’s two most popular products, Signal and Tor. Between 2013 and 2016, the OTF channeled more than $3 million to Signal, while it gave twice that amount — more than $6 million — to Tor between 2012 and 2020. (Tor continues to be sponsored by a number of U.S. government agencies).
American agents use the browser to communicate. Ironically, the influx of new users actually helps them disappear into the crowd. Without the hackers, drug dealers, cyberpunks, crypto-enthusiasts, political activists and privacy-minded individuals using it, the identities and locations of U.S. agents would become obvious to foreign states monitoring online activities. In other words, when you use Tor, you’re helping the CIA.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-open-technology-fund-makes-privacy-apps-staffed-spies/279147/
For a splendid case of irony, consider the self-described beacon of democracy and, in fact, the birthplace of internet itself (unless CERN counts), supreme defender of free speech for all, especially for those who say the right things. It so happens that certain popular top level domains are under the control of organisations who may, as a last resort, take over the control of domains they find objectionable. A striking recent case of such a takedown is the Iranian state media channel Press TV.
And what greets you at this website, if not the Pirate's banner and insignia? Nowadays their news service can still be accessed at the .ir top level domain.
The surveillance and data collection of all our online activities by governments and advertisers is clearly regrettable if one wants a free internet, but by itself it does not amount to censorship. However, the presence of this surveillance may have an indirect effect of making internet users cautious about what they post online.
Surveillance is motivated mainly by national security arguments, to catch terrorists plotting the next big hit, or to catch pedofile rings. As a corollary, there is this nothing-to-hide argument. If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to fear. In some kind of more ideal world that might even be true, but it misses a more common reason why we all might want some privacy — not to hide some wrongdoing, but rather there might be information out there that others could use to our disadvantage.
Group psychology provides some insights into group behaviour such as conformity (e.g. the Asch study). When everyone else in the group says that the third line is the longest one we tend to agree, or pretend that we do, even if there appears to be another longer line. Such conformity can be observed in discussions where there is a prefered view and hostility against any other view. Participants in such discussions will tend to voice their opinion insofar as it agrees with the general opinion of the group, otherwise they may choose to stay silent. This is where the expression "spiral of silence" comes from; as fewer dissident voices are heard in a discussion their viewpoints become even less acceptable in a self-reinforcing feedback loop.
In 2015 Elizabeth Stoycheff conducted a study of possible chilling effects on online speech in the context of surveillance. Stoycheff had 255 participants divided into two groups. They all answered questions about their willingness to speak out online about controversial political issues, but half the participants received a priming message with the purpose to direct their attention to mass surveillance by including the following message:
The next section of the survey asks for your honest opinions about some controversial political issues. While we make every attempt to ensure your opinions are kept confidential, it is important to keep in mind that the National Security Agency does monitor the online activities of individual citizens, and these actions are beyond the study’s control.
(As an aside, is it unethical not to inform all participants about this? But of course, at the time the study was conducted questions of mass surveillance were still vividly present in most people's awareness in the wake of Snowdens then recent revelations.) Stoycheff writes:
... when individuals think they are being monitored and disapprove of such surveillance practices, they are equally as unlikely to voice opinions in friendly opinion climates as they are in hostile ones.
This is a careful study with its ifs and buts in the right places, and using proper statistical methods, meaning that there can be interactions between various factors, so one should be careful not to draw too prompt conclusions from it. What the study did find, however, was that for the majority,
... being primed of government surveillance significantly reduced the likelihood of speaking out in hostile opinion climates.
As for those who claim they have nothing to hide, it turns out they are the ones most in favour of online surveillance, and they don't mind raising their voice in a discussion when they find themselves aligned with the prevailing view; when they don't, they prefer to stay silent, that is, to hide.
Reference:
These sites cover free speech issues, including internet freedom.
Part eleven (above)
Part twelve (conspiratorial thinking)
Part thirteen (psychology of propaganda)
The Oxymoronist Media Guide is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
This part first published on January 18. 2022.