Introduction
The role of the internet in modern society can be emphasized enough. Many countries have embraced this technology and used it to boost their economies and other aspects of life, including education. Most importantly, digital trends have been adopted by corporations and small and medium enterprises (SMEs), all of which have used the internet to create and exploit new commercial opportunities. Therefore, it can be argued that access to the internet is a basic right for all individuals. Modern societies are living in an age where they can freely exchange ideas and opinions. Such benefits can be observed in democratic societies that embrace the concept of freedom of expression.
The internet and related digital media have been known to shape public opinion regarding sensitive issues. The freedom of information has been achieved in some areas and curtailed in others. The success of the internet as a platform for free exchange depends on the amount of control and censorship done by the governments. Today, even the democratic governments have been accused of denying is citizens this basic right, which raises several controversies.
The purpose of this paper is to express the dangers of internet censorship laws. The thesis statement is that the internet censorship laws and tactics ranging from imprisonment and repressing journalism tend to harm the countries’ growth and development in East Africa. Evidence from multiple sources will be presented to support this position. Additionally, counter-arguments will also be presented to refute the thesis statement where the basic argument will be that countries should restrict such elements as search engines and social networking should be held accountable.
Evidence
The right to information is one of the best things that a person can have in the modern age. Today, the gap between the rich and the poor can be addressed by easing access to information. According to Faroohar, a new report by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) revealed that those countries making it difficult for their citizens to access the internet suffered great economic costs. The growth of modern economies depends on the availability and access to information (Calandrino). Therefore, it can be argued that censoring and restricting access to information only serves to derail the economic growth of a country. To support the thesis that censoring and repressing journalism harms the economy, several claims can be made and backed by evidence from multiple publications.
The first claim is that telecommunication is crucial for economic growth and that these two concepts are interrelated. Additionally, telecommunication tends to make such activities as trading more effective and efficient, which means that greater revenues can be generated. The reasoning and evidence supporting this claim have been presented by Steele, who explores the effects of a digital divide. Steele argues that accessing information from the internet allows people to engage in productive economic activities. Examples include online shopping, digital transactions, online auctions, and comparison of product prices.
Therefore, censoring means denying the public the chance to explore and engage in these activities, which limits their economic productivity. The concept of e-commerce has emerged as a result of the internet. The basic idea behind e-commerce is that businesses and customers can interact through digital media to conduct transactions. Such a business model requires that the consumers have adequate access to both the internet and information. Many experts have successfully established that modern economies are built with the information where data is regarded as a key asset. Therefore, telecommunication and other online media are the building blocks of e-commerce.
Censorships can also be costly processes, majorly because it means cutting incomes and revenues generated from the internet. Examples of such have been presented by Gaille, who establishes that internet shutdowns cost states an estimated $2.4 billion in the year 2015.
Another illustration is Egypt, where the decision to cut internet connectivity cost the country $90 million, which was to be paid by the taxpayers (Gaille). The governments of those nations that restrict the internet can be accused of causing financial losses to the taxpayers. Additionally, such governments may have failed to fully acknowledge the economic value of the internet despite the many successful e-commerce corporations illustrating just how much can be gained from connectivity. The bottom line is that the internet and telecommunications are vital platforms for economic growth and that censorships act as barriers to such growth potential.
Another claim is that no democracy can survive with censorship. According to Zuesse, only dictatorships can function with censorship because democracies depend on the ability to make their own decisions based on truth. The argument is that with censorship, people cannot make decisions based on truth but only the lies spread by the entities censoring and filtering the flow of information. The problem that emerges from such situations is the spread of fake news, which makes people less informed and misleads any decisions that people need to take. The challenge has become so profound that even the governments are trying to fight fake news through legislation (Henley).
The government may implement censorship as a program to combat fake news, which means that censorship is not the reason for the problem. However, the ability to restrict information accessed by people means that censorship is already in place, which means that the spread of fake news is a particularly sensitive subject.
The fact that democracies cannot survive censorship can be illustrated using the case of Eritrea. Mangolin has labeled Eritrea as the most censored country in the world. The country has only one government-controlled television channel and a single newspaper for a population of approximately six million people. The citizens are effectively denied the opportunity to speak freely, earn an education, work, or criticize the government.
People are forced into lifelong military services in conditions almost similar to slavery, and refugees see Eritrea as a country without opportunities. Dictatorship thrives best when the government successfully restricts all rights, including the right to hold the government accountable for its actions. However, the availability of the internet has given the activists some hope because messages of descent can be posted on Facebook and other social networking sites. Censoring the internet and repressing journalism are perfectly illustrated by Eritrea, which also shows that no democracy can thrive a censorship regime.
The third claim is that all tools that connect people and that allow information sharing can be restricted. For example, people can be blocked from accessing certain websites, as explained by Leiva-Gomez. Examples of countries that have been known to engage in such practices include North Korea, Turkey, Iran, China, and Yemen. Domestic censorship programs mean that government initiates the processes of blocking web pages. For instance, on 20 March 2014, Turkey enacted an active block of Twitter. Such activity means that a country’s government keenly monitors social media and other websites that can be used by people to express negative attitudes towards the government.
It can be argued that only governments with bad regimes can implement full blockage of internet access, which is majorly a strategy to restrict the international freedom of speech and expression. The American Civil Liberties Union has published an article expressing instances where the government has hindered the freedom of expression in the arts and entertainment industry. Legislations have become a vital tool for governments hoping to pursue the censorship agenda.
Another illustration of the fact that tools of information exchange are restricted is the email messaging application that has been disrupted and monitored by some countries. According to ProtonMail, online censorship has a basic objective of hiding certain truths and obfuscating information. The internet is the main tool targeted, which includes altering the search results in the search engines or shutting down the entire internet.
The internet today connects over 1.5 billion people across the globe (ProtonMail), which means that restricting its access effectively blocks many from accessing information. The main challenge is that even the large internet companies, including Facebook and Google, are engaged in censoring activities. Such firms are often acting for businesses that seek personal data to customize online advertisements. Google and Facebook seek to maximize advertising revenues, and businesses often require to have useful data to tailor messages. The issue of censorship becomes more complex when the tools for information sharing are monitored even by entities other than the government.
Refutations
Several opposing views can be presented to highlight areas where this practice may be acceptable. First, it can be argued that internet censorship reduces the amount of false data and fake news that are used to misinform people. According to Henley, fake news is cheaper and easier to produce as a result of the advancements in the internet. For politicians, such a phenomenon can present many opportunities, which only serve to make the problem even worse. Therefore, it can be accepted that those governments seeking to develop anti-fake news laws are doing so for the best interests of the country. Combating fake news can only be possible with effective censorship.
Governments can monitor and trace the source of information before approving it for public consumption. Many companies, individuals, and entities spreading fake news can also be held accountable in the process. Additionally, those web pages and other online sites containing such information can be blocked completely. Therefore, censorship can be used to address the challenge of fake news but only if it is ethically used.
Those supporting this position fail to acknowledge that the governments can use this pretense to implement censorship programs to deny people the right information. The case of Eritrea should serve as a warning because total censorship and repression of journalism have meant that even activists are unable to question the actions of the regime (Mangolin). Fake news can be addressed using strategies better than censorship programs, whose main evil is the denial of access to information. Additionally, censorship can mean that a government invades the privacy of people through accessing private messages. The issue of digital privacy is already a major concern, and censorship will only make it worse.
Another opposing view is that censoring the internet can facilitate the security of users. Such activities as data mining have been deployed by individuals and corporations in a process that leads to the use of personal information without the owner’s consent. The topic of privacy has already been highlighted in the refutation of the first opposing view, but the main concern here is that the use of personal data for commercial gains remains a possibility. The concept of targeted advertising, as explained by ProtonMail, requires the firm to have certain information regarding a person or a group of people. With such data, adverts can be tailored to meet the tastes of the users.
While such a process may seem harmless, the biggest worry is that personal data has been accessed without authorization. Governments can implement certain measures to prevent such activities by companies. However, such restrictions may not be possible without censorship and filters. Therefore, it can be argued that censorship can be used to enhance cybersecurity and to protect the information of the internet and digital media users.
Cybersecurity is a complex issue and should not be used as an excuse for allowing internet censorship. It can be argued that those individuals who are given the job of filtering and censoring personal data are also in charge of the same. In other words, censorship only limits who can be allowed to use a person’s private data. Even the government cannot be trusted with the data because politicians are also keen to exploit these issues for personal gains. In a nutshell, these opposing views fail to acknowledge that the problems they purport to solve through censorship are more complex and sensitive and cannot be completely solved through censorship.
Conclusion
This paper has supported the position that internet censorship only harms the economies of countries. The arguments and supporting evidence presented establishes that the internet offers countries a platform for productive commercial activities. Many people and businesses can transact and generate revenues that can have a significant impact on a nation’s gross domestic products (GDP). E-commerce businesses employ people and create business opportunities for entrepreneurs.
Additionally, the internet makes it possible for people to access information, which is deemed to be a necessity for the survival of modern companies. In other words, information is a key asset, and denying people and businesses information tends to curtail their development. Besides economic implications, it is important to understand that democracy is also threatened by internet censorship. Democracy means people can access information and can know the truth, which they can use to make such critical decisions as voting. By limiting information, people become misinformed and make the wrong decisions that can have devastating effects.
Internet censorship remains a controversial subject because many people agree that such a practice is not good for the users. However, there are also worries unscrupulous individuals can have the freedom to use and misuse the digital platforms, and their activities can harm individuals. Censorship is one of the ways of dealing with such people, but the problem is when censorship becomes an excuse to deny people the right to information. Therefore, it is hard to reach a conclusive outcome when arguing for or against internet censorship, even when ethical practices are a key requirement.
Works Cited
American Civil Liberties Union. “Freedom of Expression in the Arts and Entertainment.” 2021. ACLU. Web.
Calandrino, Joe. “Economic Growth, Censorship, and Search Engines.“. 2008. Freedom To Tinker. Web.
Faroohar, Ran. “The Real Threat to Economic Growth Is the Digital Divide.“. 2014. Time. Web.
Gaille, Louise. “13 Internet Censorship Pros and Cons.“. 2017. Vittana. Web.
Henley, Jon. “Global Crackdown on Fake News Raises Censorship Concerns.“. 2018. The Guardian. Web.
Leiva-Gomez, Miguel. “Internet Censorship: How Countries Block Their Citizens from Entering Websites.“. 2014. Maketecheasier. Web.
Mangolin, Madison. “Inside Eritrea: The World’s Most Censored Country.”. 2016. Vice. Web.
ProtonMail. “Internet Censorship – Why it Matters and What We’re Doing About It.”. 2017. ProtonMail. Web.
Steele, Carmen. “The Impacts of Digital Divide.“. 2018. Digital Divide Council. Web.
Zuesse, Eric. “Censorship Is The Way That Any Dictatorship — And No Democracy — Functions.”. 2020. Scoop. Web.