Read the original article here.

---

Digital Manipulation: How They Use Data to Control You - A Deep Dive into Internet Censorship

Internet censorship is a significant aspect of digital manipulation. It represents the deliberate control or suppression of information and communication accessible online. This manipulation is employed by various actors – governments, corporations, institutions, and sometimes individuals – to shape public discourse, maintain power, protect specific interests, and enforce social or moral norms. Unlike traditional media censorship, internet censorship presents unique technical challenges due to the borderless and decentralized nature of the digital realm, necessitating sophisticated methods to control data flow and content access.

This resource explores the mechanisms, targets, and implications of internet censorship as a tool for digital control.

Understanding Internet Censorship as Digital Manipulation

At its core, internet censorship is a form of digital manipulation because it interferes with the free and unfiltered flow of information online. By controlling what data users can access, what data can be published, and how data is found, censors attempt to control public perception, behavior, and communication.

While censorship is often associated with state actors suppressing political dissent, the concept extends to other entities and motivations:

• Institutional Control: Schools and libraries may restrict access to certain content deemed inappropriate, offensive, or illegal, framing this as ethical filtering rather than censorship.
• Self-Censorship: Individuals and organizations may preemptively withhold or alter content they publish online out of fear of legal consequences, intimidation, or a desire to conform to societal or political norms. This is a manipulation driven by external pressure.

The scope of internet censorship varies globally. Some countries implement moderate restrictions, while others engage in pervasive control, severely limiting access to news, suppressing discussion, and even shutting down entire networks during times of unrest. This control is often proactive or reactive to specific events like elections, protests, or riots. Beyond explicit blocking, censorship can also be disguised through legal mechanisms like copyright claims, defamation lawsuits, or obscenity charges used to suppress legitimate content.

Despite the technical challenges posed by the internet's distributed nature, which makes total censorship difficult, dedicated efforts by resource-rich entities can effectively limit access for large populations. The debate continues regarding the feasibility and effectiveness of censorship technologies versus circumvention tools, often described as a constant technological arms race.

Definition: Digital Manipulation In this context, digital manipulation refers to the intentional alteration, control, or distortion of digital information, platforms, or access to influence perception, behavior, or outcomes. Internet censorship is a direct form of this, manipulating access to digital content.

Mechanisms of Control: Technical Manipulation

Technical censorship methods directly manipulate data flow and access at various points within the internet infrastructure. These methods aim to prevent users from reaching specific online resources, often relying on blacklists of prohibited content identifiers.

Blacklisting Content Identifiers

Censoring entities maintain lists of content they wish to block. These blacklists can be based on:

• Keywords: Specific words or phrases.
• Domain Names: The human-readable address of a website (e.g., wikipedia.org).
• IP Addresses: The unique numerical address assigned to a server hosting online content.

These blacklists can be compiled manually, automatically, or provided by specialized government agencies.

Points of Control within the Internet Infrastructure

Censorship technologies can be implemented at various levels, impacting different scopes of internet traffic:

• Internet Backbone and Exchange Points (IXPs): This is where major networks interconnect and traffic crosses international borders. Implementing censorship here can affect vast amounts of data, but the high bandwidth and global nature present significant technical challenges. Access to information within a country's network is less affected by controls at international points.
• Internet Service Providers (ISPs): ISPs are the gatekeepers connecting users to the internet. Governments can mandate ISPs install surveillance and blocking equipment, effectively controlling what flows to their subscribers.
• Individual Institutions: Organizations like schools, libraries, or workplaces often implement their own filtering policies based on internal rules or legal requirements, controlling access for users within their network.
• Personal Devices: Laws in some regions may require manufacturers or vendors to install censorship software directly on devices sold to consumers.
• Application Service Providers (ASPs): Companies hosting user-generated content (like social media platforms, blog hosts, video sites) can be legally compelled to remove specific content or restrict access for users from certain regions. Foreign providers with local business presence are particularly vulnerable to this pressure.
• Certificate Authorities (CAs): CAs issue digital certificates verifying website identity (like for HTTPS). A malicious CA or one coerced by a government could issue fake certificates, enabling Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attacks to decrypt and inspect encrypted traffic, effectively undermining secure connections.
• Content Delivery Network (CDN) Providers: CDNs host copies of website content geographically closer to users to speed up access. As they aggregate large amounts of data, they can become attractive targets for censorship authorities seeking to block widely distributed content.

Specific Technical Approaches to Censorship

These are the methods used to block access based on blacklisted identifiers, directly manipulating data packets and network communication:

• Internet Protocol (IP) Address Blocking: Access to specific server IP addresses is denied.

  Explanation: This is like blocking access to a specific building's address. If a server hosts multiple websites (which is common in shared hosting), blocking its IP address blocks all those websites, regardless of their content. This is known as over-blocking. Users can try accessing content via proxy servers, but proxies can also be blocked.

• Domain Name System (DNS) Filtering and Redirection: When a user tries to access a website by its domain name (like example.com), the DNS system normally translates this into an IP address. Filtering manipulates this process.

  Explanation:

  • Filtering: The DNS resolver refuses to provide the IP address for a blocked domain.
  • Hijacking: The DNS resolver provides an incorrect IP address, often leading to an error page or redirecting the user to a government-controlled site. This is like disconnecting a phone book entry or giving a wrong number. Users can try using alternative DNS servers not controlled by the censor or bypass DNS entirely by using the IP address directly (if known and not blocked).

• Uniform Resource Locator (URL) Filtering: This method inspects the full web address (URL), including paths and filenames, for blacklisted keywords, not just the domain name.

  Explanation: This is like scanning the entire address, including apartment numbers or specific room details, not just the street name. It affects specifically the HTTP protocol used for web pages. Users can try encoding parts of the URL or using encrypted connections (like HTTPS) to hide the URL structure from basic inspection.

• Packet Filtering: Network traffic is scanned for blacklisted keywords within the data packets themselves. If a sufficient number of keywords are detected within a connection, the connection is terminated.

  Explanation: This is like scanning the contents of a letter for sensitive words and tearing up the letter if found. This affects many protocols. It's often used to disrupt searches for forbidden terms or block specific articles. Using encrypted connections (like HTTPS) prevents this type of inspection, as the packet content is unreadable to the filter.

• Connection Reset: After a connection is blocked (e.g., by packet filtering), future connection attempts between the user and the blocked server might be blocked for a period.

  Explanation: This is like not only hanging up on a specific call but also preventing subsequent calls between the same two numbers for a while. This can sometimes inadvertently affect other users or services if their traffic is routed through the same blocking point.

• Network Disconnection (Internet Shutdowns): This is the most drastic method, involving physically or logically cutting off internet access for a region or the entire country.

  Explanation: This is like turning off the entire phone system for a city or country. It's a blunt but effective method of complete control, preventing any online communication or access. Circumvention is extremely difficult, often requiring satellite internet access.

• Portal Censorship and Search Result Removal: Search engines and other major online portals (like social media feeds) may deliberately omit or demote links to content that is legal but deemed undesirable by the platform or pressured by external entities.

  Explanation: This is like a library refusing to list certain books in its catalog or burying them in the basement, even if they aren't illegal. While the content technically still exists online, making it effectively invisible to most users who rely on these portals for discovery. Search engines operating in certain countries may agree to censor results based on local laws or government requests.

• Computer Network Attacks: Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks or website defacements can disrupt access to targeted sites, achieving a similar outcome to blocking, albeit often temporarily.

  Explanation: This is like flooding a building with so many people that legitimate visitors can't get in (DoS) or vandalizing the sign and entrance (defacement). While often carried out by non-state actors, states or their proxies can use these techniques.

Over- and Under-Blocking

A common challenge with technical censorship is achieving precision.

Definition: Over-blocking Blocking access to content that was not intended to be censored, usually as a side effect of blocking technologies (e.g., blocking an entire IP address shared by multiple sites).

Definition: Under-blocking Failing to block all intended content, allowing some access to material that was meant to be censored.

These issues highlight the difficulty in targeting only specific "undesirable" content without restricting access to permissible information.

The Role of Commercial Filtering Software

A significant element of modern technical censorship involves the use of commercially available filtering software developed by international companies. While often marketed for workplace or parental control, these tools are purchased and deployed by governments worldwide for state-level censorship.

• Examples: SmartFilter (McAfee/Secure Computing), Websense, Netsweeper, Sandvine, Procera are companies whose products have been linked to state censorship efforts in various countries (e.g., Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Myanmar, Turkey, Egypt).
• Controversy: These companies face criticism and lawsuits (like Cisco faced regarding China's Golden Shield project) for potentially aiding repressive regimes in violating human rights and freedom of information.
• Customizable Blocking: Commercial filters often allow granular control based on numerous categories (politics, religion, sex, drugs, etc.). However, reliance on vendors' categorization systems can lead to errors and unintended over-blocking.
• Lack of Transparency: Information about which sites are blocked and why, or the specific configurations used, is often considered proprietary by vendors and not disclosed, even to the purchasing government or the public. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to assess the scope and justification of the censorship.

Reporters Without Borders has highlighted specific "Corporate Enemies of the Internet" – companies selling surveillance or censorship tech used by oppressive regimes.

Mechanisms of Control: Non-Technical Manipulation

Beyond technical blocking, censorship employs methods similar to those used for traditional media, focusing on pressuring creators, publishers, and distributors of online content. These methods aim to manipulate the availability of information rather than just the technical access to it.

• Laws and Regulations: Enacting laws prohibiting certain types of content or requiring proactive removal/blocking.
• Formal and Informal Requests: Government agencies or powerful entities requesting or demanding that content be removed, altered, or slanted. This can range from official court orders to unofficial pressure.
• Financial Influence: Bribing publishers or authors to include, withdraw, or manipulate information.
• Legal Consequences: Arrest, prosecution, fines, or imprisonment for publishers, authors, or ISPs over online content. This instills fear and encourages self-censorship.
• Civil Lawsuits: Using defamation or other civil actions to burden content creators and force removal.
• Confiscation or Destruction of Equipment: Seizing computers, servers, or other tools used to publish online content.
• Business Closure or Licensing Control: Shutting down ISPs or online publications, or withholding/revoking necessary licenses.
• Boycotts: Organizing campaigns to financially harm or isolate online platforms or creators.
• Threats and Violence: Physically threatening, attacking, or even murdering publishers, authors, or their families as intimidation.
• Job Loss: Pressuring employers to fire individuals based on their online activities or publications.
• Paid Manipulation of Discourse: Employing individuals ("trolls," "sockpuppets," "comment armies" like China's "50 Cent Party" or "Russian web brigades") to post pro-government or anti-opposition comments, articles, and social media content, often without disclosing their affiliation. This manipulates public opinion and online discourse.
• State-Created Content: Governments or affiliated entities creating their own online publications, websites, and social media accounts to disseminate approved narratives and counter dissenting views.
• Access Limitations: Restricting internet access through high costs, restrictive licensing policies, or simply failing to build necessary infrastructure in certain areas.
• Search Engine Agreements: Requiring search engines operating within a country to censor results based on government standards, effectively controlling what information users can find even if the content isn't technically blocked.

Control by Platforms: Censorship by Web Service Operators

In the context of digital manipulation, major online platforms (social media, video sites, search engines, etc.) represent powerful gatekeepers that can exercise control over user content and access, often independently of government mandates. This is a significant form of control as billions rely on these platforms for information and communication.

Definition: Deplatforming A form of internet censorship where individuals, organizations, or content are suspended, banned, or otherwise removed or marginalized by online platforms (social media, payment processors, hosting services, etc.) that typically provide services for expression or interaction.

Platforms wield this power primarily through their Terms of Service (TOS). These legal agreements users must accept typically reserve broad rights for the platform to:

• Remove or pre-screen content.
• Suspend or terminate user accounts.
• Act "at our sole discretion," "without prior notice," and "for other reasons."

While platforms argue this is necessary to enforce community standards, combat illegal content, or manage their services, critics view it as a form of private censorship or manipulation of public discourse, especially when applied inconsistently or to politically sensitive content.

• Examples from Wikipedia:
  • Facebook: TOS prohibit hateful, threatening, pornographic content, content inciting violence, and discriminatory material, reserving the right to remove content and terminate accounts for violations. They also restrict users in embargoed countries.
  • Google: TOS allow suspension/termination for non-compliance, review and removal of content deemed illegal or violating policies, and termination for copyright infringement (under DMCA). Google Search specifically reserves the right to remove sites from its index for legal reasons, quality guidelines, or "other reasons."
  • Twitter: Reserves the right to remove/refuse content and terminate users/reclaim usernames "at all times."
  • YouTube: Reserves the right to remove content (e.g., pornography, obscenity) and terminate accounts at its sole discretion, even for reasons beyond copyright.
  • Wikipedia: Content is constantly edited and can be deleted through community processes (deletion policy, speedy deletion) or by administrators (revision deletion) based on internal rules and policies, representing a form of community-driven content control.
  • Yahoo: TOS allow pre-screening, refusal, or removal of content at their sole discretion if it violates TOS or is "otherwise objectionable."

The "Year of Deplatforming" in 2018 highlighted the power of platforms to silence controversial voices (e.g., Alex Jones/InfoWars ban for "hate speech"). Financial deplatforming, where banks or payment processors deny services, is another related form of control impacting online operations.

Targets of Control: What Information is Suppressed?

Internet censorship is driven by various motives, all aimed at controlling specific types of information that are perceived as threats or undesirable by the censoring entity.

Politics and Power

This is a primary motivation for state censorship, especially in authoritarian regimes. The goal is to suppress political opposition, criticism of the government, and information that could mobilize citizens.

• Examples:
  • Websites of political blogs and opposition groups.
  • Content critical of ruling authorities or accusing them of corruption.
  • Sites related to minority groups or religions perceived as a threat (e.g., Falun Gong in China, certain religious groups in Vietnam).
  • Content deemed "lèse-majesté" (offending the dignity of the sovereign or state).
  • Sites promoting political parties opposing the current government.
  • Sites discussing sensitive social issues or LGBTQ+ rights in restrictive societies.
  • Content related to banned political ideologies or symbols (e.g., Communist imagery in Eastern Europe, Neo-Nazi sites in Germany/France).

Social Norms and Morals

Censorship based on social or moral grounds aims to enforce accepted societal standards and protect certain groups (especially children).

• Examples:
  • Child pornography (widely censored and illegal globally).
  • Sexually explicit or pornographic content (with varying degrees of restriction depending on the country).
  • Content promoting illegal drug use (like Erowid).
  • Gambling websites.
  • Sites inciting violence or promoting criminal activity.
  • Hate speech (inciting racism, sexism, homophobia, bigotry).
  • Blasphemous content (particularly if offending the majority or state religion).
  • Sites containing political satire (which can be seen as undermining authority).
  • Information about social issues or online activism (protests, petitions).

Security Concerns

Filtering motivated by national security aims to protect against perceived threats from insurgents, extremists, terrorists, or hostile foreign entities.

• Examples:
  • Websites of insurgent or terrorist groups.
  • Sites deemed to foment domestic conflict.
  • Blocking of sites related to internet hacktivist groups (like 4chan related to Anonymous).
  • Blocking of content supporting hostile states or groups (e.g., pro–North Korean sites in South Korea).

Protection of Existing Economic Interests and Copyright

Censorship can also be used to protect established industries or enforce intellectual property rights, sometimes in ways that critics argue are overly broad.

• Examples:
  • Blocking Voice over IP (VoIP) services like Skype to protect state-controlled telecommunications monopolies.
  • Blocking file-sharing or peer-to-peer (P2P) websites (like The Pirate Bay) to combat copyright infringement.
  • Blocking sites selling music or other media not approved by rights holders.
  • Using child pornography censorship as a justification for broader site blocking legislation targeting piracy, as alleged by anti-copyright activists.

Network Tools

The tools and applications that facilitate online communication and information sharing are often targeted for censorship, as they can be used to disseminate prohibited content or bypass restrictions.

• Examples:
  • Media sharing sites (Flickr, YouTube).
  • Social networks (Facebook, Instagram).
  • Translation tools.
  • Email providers.
  • Web and blog hosting platforms (Blogspot, Medium).
  • Microblogging sites (Twitter, Weibo).
  • Wikipedia (due to its uncensored information).
  • Censorship circumvention tools (anonymizers, proxy avoidance sites).
  • Search engines (Bing, Google), particularly in countries with strict information control like China or Cuba, are pressured to censor results.

Information About Individuals ("Right to be Forgotten")

The concept of a "right to be forgotten," particularly in the European Union, allows individuals to request search engines delist results containing personal information that is inaccurate, irrelevant, or excessive. While framed as a privacy right, critics argue it can be used to suppress legitimate public information and serves as a form of censorship directed at individuals' histories.

• Example: The Costeja case where an individual successfully compelled Google to remove links to a lawful news article about a past debt auction. This creates a mechanism for individuals to manipulate what information about them is easily discoverable online.

The Ultimate Control: Internet Shutdowns

The most extreme form of internet censorship is a complete or near-complete internet shutdown for a specific region or an entire country. This is a blunt but highly effective tool for control, stopping communication, organizing, and external visibility during times of crisis or protest.

• How it Works: Often involves disabling connections at the ISP level or critical network infrastructure points, sometimes even physically cutting cables or turning off equipment.
• Use Cases: Frequently used by governments to quell protests, prevent organization during elections or political unrest, or even in less common scenarios like preventing cheating during national exams.
• Examples:
  • Egypt (2011 Arab Spring) saw an unprecedented, near-total shutdown.
  • Myanmar (2007), Libya (2011), Iran (2019), and Syria have experienced full national shutdowns during periods of conflict or unrest.
  • Sudan (2019) saw a prolonged shutdown during political protests.
  • India frequently orders localized internet shutdowns during unrest or security concerns.
  • Iran's 2019 fuel protests triggered a large-scale, sophisticated national shutdown.
  • Iraq, Ethiopia, Algeria, and Uzbekistan have used localized shutdowns to prevent exam cheating.

These shutdowns are clear acts of digital manipulation, disabling the entire digital sphere as a means of maintaining physical control and suppressing the flow of information.

Circumventing Control: Resilience and Resistance

The decentralized nature of the internet makes total, flawless censorship extremely challenging. Individuals and groups actively seek ways to bypass technical restrictions and access censored information, demonstrating resilience to digital manipulation efforts.

Definition: Internet Censorship Circumvention The process of using tools, techniques, or alternative access points to bypass technical internet filtering and access otherwise censored online material.

• How it Works: Most methods rely on routing traffic through uncensored networks, often located in different jurisdictions.
• Common Methods:
  • Proxy Websites: Web-based tools that fetch content on behalf of the user from a blocked site.
  • Virtual Private Networks (VPNs): Encrypt user traffic and route it through a server in another location, masking the user's origin and destination from local filters. VPN usage is a common circumvention method (estimated over 400 million users globally).
  • Sneakernets: Physically carrying digital data (e.g., on USB drives) to bypass network restrictions.
  • Dark Web: Using anonymizing networks like Tor to access content anonymously, making it difficult for censors to track users or block content.
  • Circumvention Software Tools: Specialized applications designed to identify and bypass specific filtering techniques.
• HTTPS and Encrypted Client Hello (ECH): The increasing adoption of HTTPS encrypts the connection between a user's browser and a website, preventing basic URL and packet inspection. While the domain name is still visible in older TLS versions (allowing domain blocking), the newer ECH extension aims to encrypt even this information, further complicating filtering.
• Risks: Using circumvention methods can be illegal in some countries, leading to severe penalties including fines, imprisonment, or job loss.
• State Counter-Measures: Governments develop more sophisticated blocking techniques and actively try to identify and block circumvention tools and VPNs. Some governments (like the US, historically) have funded efforts to develop and deploy circumvention technologies or "shadow" networks to aid dissidents in repressive states.
• Physical Circumvention: In extreme cases of network shutdowns, people have resorted to physically traveling to locations outside the affected zone to access the internet ("Internet refugee camps").

Factors Influencing Resilience

A user's ability to resist censorship depends on several factors:

• Awareness: Knowing that censorship is occurring motivates users to seek alternative sources and circumvention methods.
• Demand for Information: Users are more likely to expend effort bypassing censorship for highly desired content (though entertainment can be more resilient than political content due to broader demand).
• Technical Capability and Access: Having the knowledge, tools, and financial resources to use circumvention methods.
• Social Networks: Access to diverse social networks can provide information about alternative sources or circumvention techniques.

Global Landscape of Control

Internet censorship is a global phenomenon, with its motives, scope, and effectiveness varying significantly between countries. The most stringent state-mandated filtering is often concentrated in East Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East/North Africa. However, various forms of online censorship exist in many countries, including democracies, often targeting child pornography, hate speech, or specific forms of illegal content.

• China: Known for having one of the most extensive and sophisticated censorship systems, often referred to as the "Great Firewall." It blocks a wide range of content, including foreign social media platforms, news sites, and information related to politically sensitive topics (e.g., Tiananmen Square, Dalai Lama, Falun Gong). Censorship is also used to actively suppress organization and collective expression online.
• Other Countries: Even in countries like the US, filtering occurs in specific contexts (libraries, schools). France and Germany block Nazism-related content. Many countries globally block child sexual abuse material.
• International Challenges: The borderless nature of the internet conflicts with national laws. Cases like the EU's "right to be forgotten" or rulings requiring global content removal (like Facebook's defamation case originating in Austria) raise concerns about one country's laws impacting free speech globally, potentially leading to a "race to the bottom" governed by the strictest national regulations.
• Monitoring Efforts: Several international organizations (OpenNet Initiative, Reporters Without Borders, Freedom House, V-Dem Institute, Access Now) track and report on internet censorship and digital repression worldwide, providing valuable data on trends and specific incidents.

Case Studies in Digital Manipulation and Control

Recent global events vividly illustrate the use of digital manipulation through censorship:

• The Arab Spring (2011): Social media played a crucial role in organizing and disseminating information about protests. Governments reacted by increasing censorship, including complete internet shutdowns in Egypt and Libya, attempting to regain control of the narrative and prevent coordination. The Syrian government utilized the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA) to launch cyberattacks (DoS, defacement) against critical media websites reporting on the conflict. While initial successes led to reduced censorship in some countries, the long-term trend saw increased control in others.
• Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2022): Russia blocked access to foreign social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, citing policies that reviewed Russian state-backed media. This was a clear move to control the information landscape within Russia, limiting access to external perspectives on the conflict. Circumvention methods like VPNs became crucial for Russian citizens seeking alternative information. The conflict also saw calls from entities like the European Union to censor Russian state media outlets perceived as spreading propaganda, highlighting how censorship can become a tool used by multiple sides in information warfare.

Conclusion

Internet censorship is a dynamic and evolving form of digital manipulation, employed by a wide range of actors with diverse motivations. From sophisticated technical blocking and filtering to legal pressures, financial incentives, and even physical violence, the goal is consistently to control access to information, shape narratives, and ultimately exert control over individuals and societies in the digital age. Understanding these mechanisms, the targets of suppression, the role of powerful platforms, and the ongoing efforts at circumvention is crucial for comprehending how data and digital access are used as instruments of power and control in the modern world.