Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government The Internet Politics

Are Governments Denying Internet Access To Their Political Opponents? (technologyreview.com) 149

Posted by EditorDavid from the offline-opposition dept.
"Keeping your enemies offline can cripple their chances of overthrowing you," reports the MIT Technology Review. Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes their article: Whether or not your ethnic group has political power is a crucial factor determining your access to the Internet, according to a new analysis. The effect varies from country to country, and is much less pronounced in democratic nations. But the study, published today in Science, suggests that besides censorship, another way national governments prevent opposing groups from organizing online is by denying them Internet access in the first place, says Nils Weidmann, a professor of political science at the University of Konstanz in Germany.
Researchers used a geolocation database to create a map showing subnetwork activity for a large volume of internet traffic, then compared it with geographic data for the world's ethnic groups. "They concluded that excluded groups had significantly lower access compared to the groups in power, and that this can't be explained by other economic or geographic factors (like living in rural vs. urban areas)... 'You don't have to censor if the opposition doesn't get access at all.' "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are Governments Denying Internet Access To Their Political Opponents? More

Are Governments Denying Internet Access To Their Political Opponents?

Comments Filter:

  • Don't know but Facebook and Twitter sure are (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Not to mention Hilary's campaign, who threatened a reporter with losing their job for noting that she looked "low energy" at an event.

    • Indoctrination (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      OK, citizens! Stand in a circle, join hands, and repeat after me:

      Trump is wonderful, Kumbaya.
      Trump is glorious, Kumbaya.
      Trump is wonderful, Kumbaya.
      Oh, Lord, Kumbaya!

      Trump tells truth, Lord, Kumbaya.
      Hill'ry always lies, Kumbaya.
      Trump tells truth, Lord, Kumbaya.
      Oh, Lord, Kumbaya!

      Trump is healthy, Lord, Kumbaya.
      Hill'ry's health is bad, Kumbaya.
      Trump is healthy, Lord, Kumbaya.
      Oh, Lord, Kumbaya!

      Trump's not robbing me, Kumbaya.
      Trump doesn't pump charitable and political donations to his own businesses, Kumbaya.

      • Re: Indoctrination (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Oh man, you sure convinced me! I'm a #hillshill now!

      • Anyone who gets me to crack a smile first thing in the morning before the coffee's ready must be doing something right.

        Out of mod points right now, but hope you'll accept this neat-O genuine imitation gold star in lieu thereof. And a fresh cuppa, if you're so inclined.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Try this on instead, "We Came, We Saw, He Died" https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]. Hillary Clinton.

    • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by BarbaraHudson ( 3785311 )

      "I'm in fine health. *cough* *cough*

      -- Hillary Clinton

      Translation: I have pneumonia.

      • What excuses tomorrow may bring (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Sunday September 11, 2016 @06:52PM (#52868207) Homepage Journal

        I've noticed that Hillary has a pattern of using the "most minimal" excuse that will get her by.

        She was in great health until she had a 4 minute 22 second coughing fit, then it's "I have been talking non-stop for weeks, but I'm OK now. [washingtonpost.com]"

        She was fine until she had to leave the 9/11 memorial, then it's "I was feeling a little overheated, but I'm all right now".

        That worked until the video of her collapsing [youtube.com] as she's put into a van, then it's "I have pneumonia, but it's all right".

        This tracks with other investigation into her actions, including the E-mail [nationalreview.com] scandal:

        • . She didn’t send or receive any e-mails that were classified “at the time.”
        • . She didn’t send or receive any e-mails “marked classified” at the time.
        • . She turned over all of her work-related e-mails.
        • . Her use of a private server and e-mail domain was permitted by law and regulation.
        • . All of her e-mails were immediately captured by @.gov addresses.
        • . There were numerous safeguards against security breaches and “no evidence” of hacking.
        • . She was never served a subpoena on her e-mail use.

        ...all of which she has said, occasionally under oath.

        If the past is any prediction of the future, we'll have to wait a couple of months to find out if she was really sick or not.

        • I've noticed that Hillary has a pattern of using the "most minimal" excuse that will get her by.

          http://www.vanityfair.com/news... [vanityfair.com]

          • Apparently they passed muster with the IRS. What else do you to know?

            • Apparently they passed muster with the IRS. What else do you to know?

              If they "passed muster with the IRS" then why is he using the fact that he's being audited as an excuse to not release the returns?

              And what about all the years that preceded the audit? What is he hiding? Even Richard Nixon released his tax returns.

              • Why should he release them? Romney did, and all it bought him was a lot of people like you complaining that he took every available deduction he could (otherwise known as "obeying the law"). If he's hiding anything improper, presumably the IRS will deal with him.

                Given that the lawful authorities have found nothing to squawk about, I don't see his tax returns as being anyone else's business. What do think is in them that's germane to his ability to execute his official duties as president?

                • Why should he release them? Romney did, and all it bought him was a lot of people like you complaining that he took every available deduction he could (otherwise known as "obeying the law")

                  Because all presidential and vice-presidential candidates release their tax records. Even Mike Pence knew enough to keep with tradition.

                  If Romney (and, I assume Trump) is ashamed of how they do their taxes, then it's even more reason that there should be disclosure.

          • The health rumor catapult (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Sunday September 11, 2016 @08:29PM (#52868559) Homepage Journal

            Looking at the headlines over time of Hillary leaving the 9/11 event is pretty interesting.

            A couple of hours ago, it was "Hillary has pneumonia".
            Then it was "doctors diagnosed Hillary with pneumonia".
            Then it was "doctors diagnosed Hillary with pneumonia well before the 9/11 ceremony". (On Friday, apparently).
            Now it's Hillary Clinton's Doctor Says Pneumonia Led to Abrupt Exit From 9/11 Event [nytimes.com].

            (If you've ever studied creative writing, note the slow creep away from active voice and into the passive. That last one doesn't even connect Hillary with pneumonia directly - to read the headline, you might think that she left to comfort someone *else* who has pneumonia.)

            As someone who's had pneumonia, I can well believe that she might faint after standing around for 90 minutes on a hot afternoon.

            As someone who tries to look beyond the headlines, it would seem that IF she was diagnosed on Friday it would have been better to announce it at that time. All this back-filling and back-pedaling after the fact makes it look like she's hiding something more serious.

            Here I was ready to denounce the Hillary health rumors as being unfounded, and this turns up.

            She put the issue of her health into a catapult and fired it into public view, all on her ownsome.

            • Going to pay respects at a 9/11 memorial despite a case of pneumonia sounds pretty bad-ass, now that you mention it. Donald Trump evaded the draft saying he has a "bone spur" in his heel, which he says has since spontaneously healed.

              Note: bone spurs do not spontaneously heal.

              I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but I can't think of any medical condition (including schizophrenia or a medically-induced coma) that would make her a worse choice than Donald Trump.

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by Anonymous Coward

                Note: bone spurs do not spontaneously heal.

                Yes they do. That is the most common ailment after wisdom teeth removal.

                Most common treatment method: Wait until it wears down on it's own.

            • Re: The health rumor catapult (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              It's not about her health, it's her dishonesty in acknowledging it, and her bullying intimidation of anyone who refuses to accept her party line as gospel truth.

              The problem is, Trump being a blowhard doesn't make Hillary less of a mafia boss.

          • Why bring Trump into this? Okian Warrior didn't say anything about Trump, and didn't say the lying was exclusive to Hillary. Pointing out bad things about one candidate doesn't mean you support a different one.

            • Why bring Trump into this? Okian Warrior didn't say anything about Trump, and didn't say the lying was exclusive to Hillary. Pointing out bad things about one candidate doesn't mean you support a different one.

              Because I'm with Matthew 7 3:5 on this one:

              3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
              4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
              5 Thou hypocrite, f

              • That's a fair response, and I agree with the sentiment, although I'm not sure it entirely applies in this case. One can point out flaws in both candidates without supporting either one - there's enough to criticize about each candidate this year that you should be able to point it out without being assumed to support the other one.
        • What if she was to become not only the first woman President, but actually the first robot President? Can we be sure she is not a droid already?

      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by HanzoSpam ( 713251 )

        I've seen this one before. [disquscdn.com]

        I just hope the old battle-axe doesn't croak before Trump has the opportunity to trounce her. The donks might actually replace her with someone who isn't entirely vomit inducing.

        • The donks might actually replace her with someone who isn't entirely vomit inducing.

          Most likely that would be Tim Kaine. If she dies before the election, the party can select a replacement, most likely Tim. If she dies between her election, and being sworn in, then it would automatically be Tim. The rules [wikipedia.org] are not entirely clear, but this is how they are currently interpreted.

          Personal opinion: I would prefer Tim Kaine over either Hillary or Donald. It is pathetic that someone like him cannot win in our dysfunctional primary system.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by khallow ( 566160 )

          The donks might actually replace her with someone who isn't entirely vomit inducing.

          And that would be a terrible thing.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Not to mention Hilary's campaign, who threatened a reporter with losing their job for noting that she looked "low energy" at an event.

      Got a citation for that? Frankly, it sounds more like something Trump would do, but I could be wrong. Hence the request for a citation.

  • I always appreciate when a good study establishes something that you assumed is the case. This also means that people who disagree with the idea of disenfranchisement now have evidence that it is a very real force in the world.
    • Honest question for you, have you read the actual study? I tried the link and in order to get the full text I a membership or to belong to an organization that has access. A quick Google search on the title didn't turn up full-text access, but I haven't done any looking beyond that. Maybe it's out there, but it might require some digging.

      So if you haven't read it either, how do you know it's a "good" study? It seems like you've decided to label it a "good" study because it agrees with your pre-establishe

      • Try here. [sciencemag...igital.org] For the supplementary material go here. [sciencemag.org]

        Can't get the excerpt page but the main part is there, including their methodology. Which is flawed.
        It's based on this study. [uni-konstanz.de]
        Which uses the number of unique /24 subnets and geolocation as a measurement of internet penetration in a country.
        No problem in that. Referenced study shows that there are pretty high correlations on both national and subnational level.

        The problem with the original study (one this slashdot story is about) is where it claims to "show tha

    • I always appreciate when a good study establishes something that you assumed is the case. This also means that people who disagree with the idea of disenfranchisement now have evidence that it is a very real force in the world.

      What I assume is the case, having worked with it, is that the GeoIP database is hopelessly inaccurate and can only be used in a very coarse-grained way with lots of fudging. For example, in Brazil the GeoIP databases usually omit details of city or region and all you have is 'somewhere in Brazil'.

  • Not like here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11, 2016 @05:42PM (#52867913)

    Here in America, the superior country, we would NEVER have the government censor the internet of opinions we don't like. Instead, we simply have our good buddies/donors Facebook and Twitter do it for us.

    • Here in America, the superior country, we would NEVER have the government censor the internet of opinions we don't like. Instead, we simply have our good buddies/donors Facebook and Twitter do it for us.

      Check out voter registration... If you are in a majority Hispanic or Black area you may find that you have to go to some lengths and travel some distance to get a drivers licence renewed.

  • I'n shocked (Score:3)

    by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Sunday September 11, 2016 @05:45PM (#52867923)
    Shocked that someone felt the need to ask that question. Censorship and propaganda are as old as politics.
    • If I had mod points, which I usually do, I would figure out how to hack Slashdot and mod you up to 10 or so. This is bordering on Bennett content.

  • Third world keeps on third worldin' (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Sunday September 11, 2016 @05:47PM (#52867937)
    In other news...some of those same people don't have indoor plumbing or electricity...because racism and totally not because they're living in an underdeveloped country-only-on-paper where tribe and clan are the only institutions there are.

  • Hopefully they are... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Hopefully they are blocking Trump, because no one likes a troll.

  • This is Hillary's Agenda (Score:5, Insightful)

    by knorthern knight ( 513660 ) on Sunday September 11, 2016 @06:39PM (#52868153)

    In "the good ole days before the internet", the MSM (Main Stream Media) controlled the news. The government needed a dozen people on their rolodex, and embarressing stories could be shut down. E.g. John F Kennedy was screwing women all over the place, and Bill Clinton would almost be a saint in comparison. But the MSM kept quiet, and it wasn't until much later that JFK's philandering became known.

    Bill Clinton realized by 1995, that the internet had the potential to democratize the news and bypass the gatekeepers. "Moreover, it allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be located in one area and available to all," http://www.breitbart.com/big-j... [breitbart.com]

    In 1998, his worst fears came true. Clinton's MSM buddies at Newsweek spiked (i.e. killed) a bombshell of a story about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. But a lowly store clerk with a modem (i.e. Matt Drudge) published the story on his site. Hillary was whining about there not being any "gatekeepers" on the internet http://www.freerepublic.com/fo... [freerepublic.com]

    Fast-forward to the current election campaign, and the Democrats are openly talking about shutting down the Breitbart website http://dailycaller.com/2016/08... [dailycaller.com]

    Do you really want Hillary in charge?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Desler ( 1608317 )

      Your complaint is highly amusing since you ignore how Trump wants to abuse libel laws to shut down reporting he doesn't like.

      http://www.politico.com/blogs/... [politico.com]

      So, yes, if I have to choose I would pick Hillary over Herr Trump.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Desler ( 1608317 )

        Off topic mod? LOL, did some Trump supporter get his panties all in a wad?

      • Your complaint is highly amusing since you ignore how Trump wants to abuse libel laws to shut down reporting he doesn't like.
        So, yes, if I have to choose I would pick Hillary over Herr Trump.

        You are I hope aware that the largest specific reason that the news media is so fucked up in the USA today is Bill Clinton. He signed the law that blew away our protection from one company owning all the media outlets in one town. The truth is that Trump is just a spoiler for Clinton, and that he is simply another pro-corporate candidate. You can ignore everything he has to say. If he accidentally became president, it would be basically indistinguishable from a Clinton presidency.

    • The "loss" of Breitbart would be a net gain for the Internet.

    • Do you really want Hillary in charge?

      The prudent course of action would be to choose a person who will be guided by a certain amount of rationality and not blinded by their own self-importance, so I guess the answer is "yes". I'm sure she isn't a saint, but who is? Politics is a dirty game, and having a naive idealist at the helm is probably not what the world needs; nor do we need somebody who is obscessed with his own "greatness" and can't stop bragging about achievements that in his own mind are incredible (but seem a bit silly to most othe

  • What do you think. If you have a platform and you aren't dedicated to civil liberties and free speech, then you no-platform your opponents, no questions asked.

    Ask any college conservative.

    If you want free speech, then be prepared to seize it, because fascists of all stripes aren't going to give it to you.

  • The more any conflict can be described as ethnicity related, the more the media profits from the click bait, however false it all is.

    The more the DNC can say 'We will protect your civil rights based on your ethnicity' (some ethnicities excluded), the more the DNC profits.

    Ethnic conflict was supposed to get better under Obama, but he has to dole out to the DNC and the media and so it is far worse with the BLC/police conflict on the verge of civil war.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close