The Internet is a two-way street

From July 27, 2010

Just as you and a stranger from Australia can exchange cobbler recipes, so too can Kim Jong-il and Hugo Chavez share tactics on persecuting dissidents.

Paying special attention to countries like China and Iran, a panel of experts on censorship of the Internet espoused their views on the war between internet activists and authoritarian regimes. The panel stressed power of the Internet as a tool for dictators, and the growing role of companies like Google in the international community.

Hosted at the Google offices in Washington, DC, by the Foreign Policy Initiative, the panelists drew a crowd of around sixty people with the promises of refreshments and topical knowledge of what Google is doing to combat censorship. Bob Boorstin, Director of Corporate and Policy Communications to Google, explained that his company has an explicit place in the battle.

“[Our role] is to do everything we can do to maximize access to information,” he said. What this means is that total absence of censorship is rarely going to come to fruition in non-free societies. Citing a partial block on certain Youtube videos in Thailand, Boorstin stated that partial bans are better than complete bans. If sacrificing a few videos that mock the Thai King means the country gets access to everything else on Youtube, then so be it. It is not the place of Google, he affirmed, to dictate policy and social norms to nations with different cultural beliefs.

Boorstin went on to warn governments that they should recognize the “dual-use” aspect of many technologies. Just as a hundred thousand freedom fighters can organize and plan meetings on Facebook, so too can governments use those groups to easily target opposition leaders. Cynthia Wong of the Center for Democracy & Technology echoed his concerns.


“The halcyon days of assuming the internet is all about liberation are over,” said Wong. Speaking in regards to China, she explained how regimes can practice censorship while avoiding economic sacrifices. Normally, hindering free speech comes at the cost of hindering business. China has avoided this conundrum.


The panel offered little advice for the common activist on the internet, but Robert Guerra of the Internet Freedom project at Freedom House reminded the audience that “offline” subversive measures remain, and should not be forgotten. Guerra warned that because of the anonymity of the recent reports published by Wikileaks on the war in Afghanistan, some governments are now working to make all published information require an identifiable author.


In regards to democracies such as the United States, the panel agreed that they have an important role to play in raising the issue of censorship at the highest levels. Additionally, they agreed that, in terms of its abilities as a liberator, the Internet is a bit over-hyped. While Twitter and Facebook have helped opposition movements around the world, they have rarely begat actual regime change. In Iran, the so-called “Twitter Revolution” only had the effect of showing Ahmadinejad’s regime how to use social media.


Speaking to the ever changing nature of the Internet, Boorstin reminded the audience that “anything that any of us says could likely be wrong tomorrow.”