Two of the most beloved social media sites, Twitter and Facebook, conquer most of the worlds media today, but if you were born and raised in China these two names would rarely cross your mind. “Twitter and Facebook were blocked in China in July 2009 after riots in the western province of Xinjiang” (Blanchard, 2009). Just because these pure western social media sites are banned in China does not mean that social media doesn’t exist in the country. Several Chinese born social media sites exist for Chinese citizens to use. China’s largest site is Sina Weibo, a Chinese microblogging site, and it is used by hundreds of millions of Chinese. The GFW or the Great Firewall of China is the internet block on foreign websites from within China. This results in Chinese content being consistently filtered and tailored to its citizens’ view. This censorship, though, relies on the specific social media companies. “The censorship regime relies more heavily on domestic companies to police their own content under penalty of fines, shutdown and criminal liability” (Crandall, et al., 2007; MacKinnon, 2009; OpenNet Initiative, 2009). The censorship in China is used as a tool to reduce public outcry and prevent talk about questionable political events. One main story of censorship involved a drunk driver, “in October 2010, when a 22–year–old named Li Qiming killed one and injured another in a drunk driving accident at Hebei University. His response after the accident — “Go ahead, sue me if you dare. My dad is Li Gang!” (Xiao, 2011; Wines, 2010). Li Gang was a deputy police chief for a district nearby Heibei. This post caused a public outcry, many Chinese were posting about government corruption in the police. As the public eye closed in around these posts; however, they all started to disappear. Even posts just mentioning the names of individuals involved started to be deleted.
Similarly, in the U.S. the same trend follows. Recently in a 2021 article by Bradley Martin, he states that Joe Biden called for the censorship of misinformation related to Covid-19. The White house’s stance on the matter was followed up with the idea that, “users who post “misinformation” should be banned on every social media platform” (Martin 2021). The Biden administration also admits to flagging posts on sites like Facebook themselves. Maritn justifies the use of censorship in some aspects, when it comes to deplatforming certain extreme groups. He specifically mentions the use of censorship to block out and suppress extremist groups like ISIS. He also discusses the use of censorship to suppress hate groups on social media. “A study found that Reddit’s decision in 2015 to ban various hate groups led to less hate speech on the site. It was found that users who participated in the banned subreddits left the site, while those who remained dramatically reduced their hate speech usage” (Martin 2021). “Deplatforming” and censorship, although having different names, are the exact same thing, one just sounds prettier to the public. Martin then explores the use of this deplatforming in electoral campaigns, recalling a time when, “Facebook and Twitter censored the New York Post over the paper’s exposés about Hunter Biden’s emails and corruption” (Martin 2021). Both Facebook and Twitter flagged these posts for misinformation, which promptly led to censorship of the story altogether. Martin emphasizes the effects of this censorship by providing how it affected the 2020 presidential election. “A news report from the Media Research Center shows that 17 percent of Biden voters would not have voted for the Biden-Harris presidential ticket if they knew at least one of the eight news stories that were suppressed by big tech and mainstream media outlets” (Martin 2021). In the end Martin’s largest concern is the lack of a widely accepted definition of “misinformation” when it comes to censorship.
Elsewhere in the world in Cuba, censorship exists in almost a mic between the ideas of censorship in the U.S. and China. For decades independent media has been restricted in Cuba, specifically regarding to many social and political issues. According to The Associated Press during one of Cuba’s worst economic crisis, “authorities blocked social media sites in an apparent effort to stop the flow of information into, out of and within the beleaguered nation” (The Associated Press). Sites like Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and Telegram were being blocked by Cuba in response to protests. The Associated Press acknowledge that in recent years Cuba has been allowing more and more access to the internet and social media, but at the same time drastically increasing levels of censorship. When Cuba feels like it they can flip a switch and restrict information either leaving or coming to the Island. Even though internet access exists in Cuba, it is not easily accessible. The Associated Press states that, “Internet access in Cuba has historically been expensive and relatively rare, according to rights groups” (The Associated Press). The shutdown of the internet following protests, according to The Associated Press, has actually become commonplace in today’s world, especially in countries like Ethiopia, where internet shutdowns can last as long as weeks.
Regarding Ethiopia, internet censorship and government control is commonly considered the strictest in the world. The government strictly controls internet searches and conducts internet blackouts. This is where the government revokes internet connectivity as a whole. After a coup attempt on the government, where a regional president was assassinated, Ethiopia put the entire country on one of these blackouts in an attempt to erase it from existence. Even after the blackout was lifted, “access to major social media platforms was blocked” (Xynou 2019). The country uses these internet blackouts to block as a political tool. When issues arise in the country the Ethiopian government strictly regulates all information going in and out of the country. The government benefits from this by maintaining good press from the nations around the world.
In Post-Fact, Post-Truth Society, in an essay by David Uberti, misinformation and censorship has become a common practice as, “corruption of the information that reached readers remained common” (Uberti 435). Similar to the countries I have written about earlier in this essay, a common practice of the media is to produce misinformation that benefits them in the long run. Censorship of other topics just pushes their agenda further and reduces competition. Uberti acknowledges that, “The existence of an independent, powerful, widely respected news media establishment is an historical anomaly.” Is this applicable to national governments as well?
Whether you have developed this realization throughout reading or not, all of this evidence clearly shows how dangerous Government involvement in censorship of the internet is, and why governments should not use censorship as a tool. In extreme cases such as China, Cuba, and Ethiopia, the dangers are right in front of us. While media censorship can be dangerous within itself, government censorship acts almost as a form of mind control typically only seen in sci-fi movies. Government should not have any part in it’s peoples’ access to the internet, because this directly translates to a country with a misinformed, and muzzled population. By taking evidence from other countries around the world, the U.S. should take a look and carefully consider the future of government control of the media.
Works Cited
Bamman, David, et al. First Monday – Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science. www.cs.cmu.edu/~dbamman/pubs/pdf/firstmonday.pdf.
Martin, Bradley. “Social Media Censorship Is a Potent Threat to Freedom of Speech.” The Washington Times, The Washington Times, 21 July 2021, www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jul/21/social-media-censorship-is-a-potent-threat-to-free/.
The Associated Press, et al. “Cuba’s Internet Cutoff: The Go-to Tactic for Global Despots.” The Republic News, 12 July 2021, www.therepublic.com/2021/07/12/us-cuba-internet/#:~:text=Internet%20access%20in%20Cuba%20has%20historically%20been%20expensive,and%20blogs%2C%E2%80%9D%20according%20to%20Human%20Rights%20Watch.%20.
Karanja (University of Toronto), Moses, et al. “Resurgence of Internet Censorship in Ethiopia: Blocking of WhatsApp, Facebook, and African Arguments.” OONI, 15 Nov. 2019, ooni.org/post/resurgence-internet-censorship-ethiopia-2019/.
Uberti, David. “Post-Fact, Post-Truth Society.” Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings, by John D. Ramage et al., Pearson, 2019, pp. 432–436.