Internet content blocking: about messengers and social networks
In the last article we talked about the cases of "turning off" the Internet in different countries and the tools that are used for this. In today's article, as promised, we are talking about high-profile bans on the Web regarding social media and instant messengers. Consider where in the world go to such measures and what initiatives are being put forward.
/ Pexels / Fancycrave / CC
In 2016, in 24 out of 65 countries studied by Freedom House, access to social networks and means of communication was restricted in one form or another. The most frequently blocked network was Facebook.
')
For example, access to it, as well as to Twitter and other platforms, is limited in China. In part, this decision is connected with the desire of the state to promote "domestic" IT products. Instead of the world's major IT players, the local microblogging platform Weibo and the social network Qzone operate in the country.
North Korea also has a policy of isolating from international social networks. And this country is the only one that is completely closed from all social media.
The “Big Three” - Facebook, Twitter, YouTube - were also banned in Turkey after a major scandal in 2014, and in 2015 due to considerations of national security. A similar picture is observed in Iran and Vietnam. However, in the latter case, the law on the closure of access to social networks came out relatively recently (three years ago).
There are restrictions on access to Internet content in African countries: social media has been blocked during elections in Congo, Chad and Uganda. Not so long ago, English-speaking districts of Cameroon also remained without access to Twitter, Whatsapp and Facebook. The same services, as well as Instagram and Viber, were “ disconnected ” in Ethiopia during student exams.
Almost all the major international social networks and instant messengers are periodically blocked in certain regions of India. For example, this year Kashmir lost access to them for a whole month to stop the spread of aggressive videos.
There are also situations in the world when social networks blocked due to the failure of the owners of the services to comply with the laws of the state. For example, LinkedIn professional social network has been unavailable for residents of Russia for more than a year due to violation of the law on personal data.
Each country has its own messenger-leader in the number of users. Most of the world in this regard won WhatsApp. According to Freedom House, it accounts for most of the locks. Telegram, Viber, Facebook Messenger, LINE, IMO and Google Hangouts were also regularly blocked in 2016. A number of countries restrict access to voice and video communications, others go on a total ban on popular instant messengers on their territory.
/ Pixabay / LoboStudioHamburg / CC
An important aspect of the work of instant messengers, which has been the subject of disputes for a long time, is E2E encryption, a technology that ensures that no one except the participants in the discussion can read the correspondence. Now about half of all traffic on the Internet is encrypted . And many large technical corporations are active advocates for the right to encrypt personal data. One such company is Apple.
Encryption in many of the listed services is an option (for example, Facebook Messenger), and in some of them acts as the main function. Because of this, companies engaged in the development of instant messengers periodically have problems. For example, over the past year in Russia, Roskomnadzor tried several times to ban Telegram, it was also blocked in Indonesia.
In some countries, laws are being passed that oblige social networks and communication service providers to provide decrypted data at the request of law enforcement agencies. For example, such requirements are prepared by the UK and Australia .
Thus, the situation around the potential prohibition of E2E encryption is already being discussed at international levels. This question was even raised by the Australian Prime Minister at the G20 summit. And such trends can lead to the creation of an international working group to address the issues of regulation of encryption technology.
However, some countries may refuse such regulation and find their own solution to the problem. For example, the European Parliament is already advocating for E2E encryption, because it ensures freedom of speech and privacy.
As another form of blocking, it is possible to consider internal monitoring and moderation by social networks and instant messengers, although they are aimed at complying with the law.
For example, Facebook pays great attention to the war with fake news, and as part of this initiative, it cleans users' tapes from breaking the internal rules of the content. Twitter is taking similar steps. The main front of the struggle of social networks and instant messengers today is misinforming news and materials calling for violence.
Such content not only threatens the security of users, but also serves as the main motive for platform locks. In this regard, after a series of scandals related to the Telegram, Pavel Durov, who advocated freedom of dissemination of information, announced prohibited topics for his messenger in October and reported on the closure of 8.5 thousand extremist channels.
The downside of the internal filtration is the so -called bubble filters. Many social networks seek to provide the user with a personalized news feed, from which inappropriate material is excluded.
However, this has a negative effect. Eli Pariser (Eli Pariser), who introduced the concept of bubble filters, notes that in this case requests of the same people to search engines (including social networks) lead to the issuance of completely different information. Although this approach allows you to get rid of prohibited content, according to Eli, it contributes to the loss of objectivity in communicating with the user.
PS Here are some more materials on the topic from the corporate blog VAS Experts:
/ Pexels / Fancycrave / CC
Folding social networks
In 2016, in 24 out of 65 countries studied by Freedom House, access to social networks and means of communication was restricted in one form or another. The most frequently blocked network was Facebook.
')
For example, access to it, as well as to Twitter and other platforms, is limited in China. In part, this decision is connected with the desire of the state to promote "domestic" IT products. Instead of the world's major IT players, the local microblogging platform Weibo and the social network Qzone operate in the country.
North Korea also has a policy of isolating from international social networks. And this country is the only one that is completely closed from all social media.
The “Big Three” - Facebook, Twitter, YouTube - were also banned in Turkey after a major scandal in 2014, and in 2015 due to considerations of national security. A similar picture is observed in Iran and Vietnam. However, in the latter case, the law on the closure of access to social networks came out relatively recently (three years ago).
There are restrictions on access to Internet content in African countries: social media has been blocked during elections in Congo, Chad and Uganda. Not so long ago, English-speaking districts of Cameroon also remained without access to Twitter, Whatsapp and Facebook. The same services, as well as Instagram and Viber, were “ disconnected ” in Ethiopia during student exams.
Almost all the major international social networks and instant messengers are periodically blocked in certain regions of India. For example, this year Kashmir lost access to them for a whole month to stop the spread of aggressive videos.
There are also situations in the world when social networks blocked due to the failure of the owners of the services to comply with the laws of the state. For example, LinkedIn professional social network has been unavailable for residents of Russia for more than a year due to violation of the law on personal data.
War against instant messengers
Each country has its own messenger-leader in the number of users. Most of the world in this regard won WhatsApp. According to Freedom House, it accounts for most of the locks. Telegram, Viber, Facebook Messenger, LINE, IMO and Google Hangouts were also regularly blocked in 2016. A number of countries restrict access to voice and video communications, others go on a total ban on popular instant messengers on their territory.
/ Pixabay / LoboStudioHamburg / CC
An important aspect of the work of instant messengers, which has been the subject of disputes for a long time, is E2E encryption, a technology that ensures that no one except the participants in the discussion can read the correspondence. Now about half of all traffic on the Internet is encrypted . And many large technical corporations are active advocates for the right to encrypt personal data. One such company is Apple.
Encryption in many of the listed services is an option (for example, Facebook Messenger), and in some of them acts as the main function. Because of this, companies engaged in the development of instant messengers periodically have problems. For example, over the past year in Russia, Roskomnadzor tried several times to ban Telegram, it was also blocked in Indonesia.
In some countries, laws are being passed that oblige social networks and communication service providers to provide decrypted data at the request of law enforcement agencies. For example, such requirements are prepared by the UK and Australia .
Thus, the situation around the potential prohibition of E2E encryption is already being discussed at international levels. This question was even raised by the Australian Prime Minister at the G20 summit. And such trends can lead to the creation of an international working group to address the issues of regulation of encryption technology.
However, some countries may refuse such regulation and find their own solution to the problem. For example, the European Parliament is already advocating for E2E encryption, because it ensures freedom of speech and privacy.
The networks themselves are watching the content.
As another form of blocking, it is possible to consider internal monitoring and moderation by social networks and instant messengers, although they are aimed at complying with the law.
For example, Facebook pays great attention to the war with fake news, and as part of this initiative, it cleans users' tapes from breaking the internal rules of the content. Twitter is taking similar steps. The main front of the struggle of social networks and instant messengers today is misinforming news and materials calling for violence.
Such content not only threatens the security of users, but also serves as the main motive for platform locks. In this regard, after a series of scandals related to the Telegram, Pavel Durov, who advocated freedom of dissemination of information, announced prohibited topics for his messenger in October and reported on the closure of 8.5 thousand extremist channels.
The downside of the internal filtration is the so -called bubble filters. Many social networks seek to provide the user with a personalized news feed, from which inappropriate material is excluded.
However, this has a negative effect. Eli Pariser (Eli Pariser), who introduced the concept of bubble filters, notes that in this case requests of the same people to search engines (including social networks) lead to the issuance of completely different information. Although this approach allows you to get rid of prohibited content, according to Eli, it contributes to the loss of objectivity in communicating with the user.
PS Here are some more materials on the topic from the corporate blog VAS Experts:
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/341918/
All Articles