3 ms·

I’m generally sceptical of attempts to quantify concepts like ‘internet freedom’.⁰ However, the conclusion is probably right, insofar as it’s meaningful to ref

I’m generally sceptical of attempts to quantify concepts like ‘internet freedom’.⁰ However, the conclusion is probably right, insofar as it’s meaningful to refer to internet freedom ‘around the world’, even going on a qualitative approach. The long-term trend is the spread of China-style internet controls at the very least in non-democracies.¹ There is not much stopping this process except bureaucratic inertia. It is in the interests of the zhongnanhai not to have to interact with a world set on democratic norms contrary to its interests. It is in the interests of local governments to be able to control the threat of dissent on the internet. Although there are some unsung victories (e.g. in Malawi, Zambia, and maybe Sudan) in which incumbents were thrown out at least partly by movements in support of constitutional democracy, just as many countries are slipping away from constitutional democracy, so the pool of dictatorships open to Chinese-style internet controls is at the very least not shrinking very fast. In the West, it’s very hard to find principled defenders of freedom of expression in any political party, and the same applies to internet freedom. If the legal situation is right, judges are more attached to it. 0: for the reasons outlined at https://samzdat.com/2018/03/26/enter-a-search-term-e-g-democracy/ https://samzdat.com/2018/03/26/enter-a-search-term-e-g-democ... 1: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-internet-surveillance-idUSKCN1N63KE https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-internet-surveilla...

dane-pgp 5y ago
One way I've imagined that "internet freedom" could be measured objectively (if not necessarily accurately) is simply to measure what percentage of the web is available in each country. The word "simply" perhaps doesn't belong in that sentence, but let's assume for a moment that 1) it is possible to enumerate every possible website, without duplication, 2) it is possible to say definitively whether a given site is accessible in a given country, and 3) that sites which apply their own geoblocks count as "available" everywhere (to avoid having to decide whether the block is the fault of the host or requester's government). Unfortunately that system is still probably too simplistic, as there are likely to be sites which almost every country agrees shouldn't be reachable, but the hosting jurisdiction doesn't have the motivation or resources to shut it down. To account for this scenario, a site should be excluded from the list if it is unavailable in more than half the countries in the world, representing more than half the population of the world. I'm not sure how useful this objective measure would be, but it could allow the problem of censorship to be discussed in a politically neutral way. Oh, and scores for countries should be reduced by a third if the country bans Tor, and another third if it also bans VPNs.
raxxorrax 5y ago
Problem isn't even China. Far more insidious are people in democracies that try to do the same. Mayor of our capital ordered a home search because someone insulted him on Facebook. Not sure about the content what he said, it was probably decently tasteless, but I think this is disproportionate, has a chilling effect and borders on abuse of office. Ultimately it will be people like this that make draconian laws and censorship possible, so I don't need to look for other countries.

dane-pgp 5y ago

One way I've imagined that "internet freedom" could be measured objectively (if not necessarily accurately) is simply to measure what percentage of the web is available in each country. The word "simply" perhaps doesn't belong in that sentence, but let's assume for a moment that 1) it is possible to enumerate every possible website, without duplication, 2) it is possible to say definitively whether a given site is accessible in a given country, and 3) that sites which apply their own geoblocks count as "available" everywhere (to avoid having to decide whether the block is the fault of the host or requester's government). Unfortunately that system is still probably too simplistic, as there are likely to be sites which almost every country agrees shouldn't be reachable, but the hosting jurisdiction doesn't have the motivation or resources to shut it down. To account for this scenario, a site should be excluded from the list if it is unavailable in more than half the countries in the world, representing more than half the population of the world. I'm not sure how useful this objective measure would be, but it could allow the problem of censorship to be discussed in a politically neutral way. Oh, and scores for countries should be reduced by a third if the country bans Tor, and another third if it also bans VPNs.

raxxorrax 5y ago

Problem isn't even China. Far more insidious are people in democracies that try to do the same. Mayor of our capital ordered a home search because someone insulted him on Facebook. Not sure about the content what he said, it was probably decently tasteless, but I think this is disproportionate, has a chilling effect and borders on abuse of office. Ultimately it will be people like this that make draconian laws and censorship possible, so I don't need to look for other countries.