Censorship is Futile

TL;DR

This paper demonstrates that government censorship on the internet is ineffective and often backfires, increasing the popularity of censored content, based on data from multiple online sources in Pakistan and Turkey.

Contribution

It provides empirical evidence that internet censorship fails to restrict access and highlights the Streisand Effect, informing policy and citizen strategies against censorship.

Findings

Censorship has been ineffective in restricting access.

Censored content often becomes more popular due to the Streisand Effect.

Data shows increased interest in censored topics despite restrictions.

Abstract

The Internet has become the new battle ground between authoritarian regimes and ordinary individuals who want unimpeded access to information. The immense popularity of online activism and citizen journalism enabled by social media has instigated state level players to partially or completely block access to the Internet. In return, individuals and organizations have been employing various anti-censorship tools to circumvent these restrictions. In this paper, we claim that censorship is futile as not only has it been ineffective in restricting access, it has also had the side-effect of popularising blocked content. Using data from Alexa Web Rankings, Google Trends, and YouTube Statistics, we quantify the ineffectiveness of state level censorship in Pakistan and Turkey and highlight the emergence of the Streisand Effect. We hope that our findings will, a) prove to governments and other players the futility of their actions, and b) aid citizens around the world in using legal measures to counteract censorship by showing its ineffectiveness.