Utne Blogs > Science and Technology

Censorship by Frustration

 by Bennett Gordon


Tags: Science, Technology, Media, censorship, China, free speech, thought control, Chronicle of Higher Education, Ars Technica, New York Times, YouTube, Google, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Tim Wu,

Internet CensorshipA new form of censorship has quietly crept over the internet. Though governments continue to pursue old-school forms of prior restraint, technology is quickly making the blackened-ink style of censorship obsolete. The new ways to restrict free speech don’t require killing information entirely, governments and private companies simply inconvenience and frustrate people away from information they want to keep under wraps.

The internet was meant to foster communication, and it still creates opportunities for vibrant free speech. At the same time, computer science professor Harry Lewis writes for the Chronicle of Higher Education that the internet’s “rapid and ubiquitous adoption has created a flexible and effective mechanism for thought control.” As people increasingly rely on the internet for their news and information, banishing something from the web means effectively striking it from the public consciousness.

Governments have already begun to influence internet usage inside of their countries to enforce social and political norms. Lewis writes that on the internet, there is already “no sex in Saudi Arabia, no Holocaust denials in Australia, no shocking images of war dead in Germany, no insults to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey.”

China sits at the vanguard of this new form of censorship. The country’s famed “Great Firewall” is one of the most advanced information blocking tools in the world. Every savvy netizen, however, knows of proxy servers, encryption services, and other ways to skirt the firewall and find information that China doesn’t want its citizens to see. “The Great Firewall of China isn't impenetrable, “Jacqui Cheng reported for Ars Technica in 2007, “it just takes a little elbow grease and high Internet traffic to squeeze a few banned terms through.” That requirement of elbow grease constitutes the cornerstone of the new censorship.

Governments don’t have to censor all the information that comes into their country anymore, either. Censorship increasingly relies on one information bottleneck: Google. Jeffrey Rosen wrote for the New York Times that Google and its subsidiaries, including YouTube, “arguably have more influence over the contours of online expression than anyone else on the planet.” Governments and businesses now realize that banning information from Google means effectively censoring it from a massive audience of people, and they are developing strategies accordingly.

“To love Google, you have to be a little bit of a monarchist, you have to have faith in the way people traditionally felt about the king,” technology expert Tim Wu told the New York Times. After the Turkish government successfully lobbied YouTube to take down videos inside of Turkey that were deemed offensive, the Government tried to ban the videos worldwide to protect Turks living outside the country. These videos would all be available on websites other than YouTube, but with one website eclipsing all others for web videos, really, who would know?

In the United States, copyright laws are often invoked to frighten people into censorship. The Electronic Frontier Foundation reported that the McCain-Palin campaign, an unlikely advocate for internet freedom, claimed that YouTube “silenced political speech” after it took down campaign ads due to copyright violation claims.

YouTube general council Zahavah Levine responded saying, “YouTube does not possess the requisite information about the content in user-uploaded videos to make a determination as to whether a particular takedown notice includes a valid claim of infringement.” Because of that lack of information, the site often takes down videos first and examines the validity of copyright claims later. By the time videos are restored, especially in a fast-moving political campaign setting, the damage has already been done.

The website Chilling Effects documents many of these cease-and-desist letters in an attempt to combat some of the unnecessary censorship. The site was created in partnership with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a number of universities to help people understand their First Amendment rights and protect legal online speech. But with governments and businesses exchanging and learning from each other’s censorship tactics, the strategies to restrict free speech will likely grow more sophisticated.

timothy r_1
4/29/2009 9:32:06 PM

I would like to contact the author[s] of the published article "Censorship by Frustration" as well as the Foundations that are mentioned within same article watching out for such ways of censorship/minds-control as well as advocating for a truly free and accessibly shareable way of making a commons for sharing our whole selves without which democracy is a crazy and cruel joke ideal dream on us all.


lance winslow
1/22/2009 1:54:18 AM

As an online writer (actually the most prolific online article writer on the planet w/15,000 articles)- I can tell you that this is becoming a huge problem. As a blogger, I am completely amazed at how quickly "non-politically correct" essays and articles are removed or the writer banned. In fact, things are getting so bad now that we are watching exactly what happens when socialism rules and those that mold the minds of the masses use it to control the whole of society and any dissenters that merely point out when the created reality has moved too far from the real reality. I am very concerned and as the founder of the Online Think Tank quite worried about the future of humankind. Seriously, it's that important. We must act now, or we'll be sorry later, all of us.


susan williams_1
1/21/2009 11:51:33 AM

In addition to government censorship via Google and YouTube, I am wondering about something I noticed during the Presidential campaign. I was never able to contribute directly to Obama's website because it always crashed, so I had to find other ways to contribute to his campaig, usually through related websites. His was so consistently a problem that I wondered if someone had tampered with the connection to discourage donations. Is that possible? Probable? Any thoughts?