Interesting interactive graphic showing what nations are censoring the internet, what content they are restricting, and the methods they using.

Hat tip Good

Category: Legal, Technology, Weblogs

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

11 Responses to “Internet Censorship”

  1. Transor Z says:

    EPIC [Electronic Privacy Information Center] is pursuing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security for information about the agency’s surveillance of social networks and news organizations.

    In February 2011, the Department of Homeland Security announced that the agency planned to implement a program that would monitor media content, including social media data. The proposed initiatives would gather information from “online forums, blogs, public websites, and messages boards” and disseminate information to “federal, state, local, and foreign government and private sector partners.” The program would be executed, in part, by individuals who established fictitious usernames and passwords to create covert social media profiles to spy on other users. The agency stated it would store personal information for up to five years.

    Federal complaint is here:

  2. [...] Internet Censorship | The Big Picture [...]

  3. VennData says:

    The entire SOPA stupidity is aimed at censoring you, your access and what you can and cannot see.

    Also (which see) Study Confirms: News Networks Owned By SOPA Supporters… Are Ignoring SOPA/PIPA (TechDirt)

    Also (which see) The coming war on general-purpose computing (BoingBoing)

  4. VennData says:

    The Commander-in-Chief has made his feelings clear…

    Side with Rupert Murdock and the other media barons, the corporation stooges who want to control what you see, Iran-like.

    Hey, Rupert Murdock, if you like Iranian media so much, why did you become an immigrant here in the US, and not there. The are a monotheist state, you and you Fox News geneflectors love morality laws. Why not set up all your Fox News sets there?

  5. JurgenL says:

    By using the vocabulary of the censors the site is endorsing their narratives.

    For example, the idea of providing the population with “security” was used by the old Soviet regime to justify censorship against malevolent Westerners. The assumption that the censor, the “Other”, is inevitably and invariably the “government” is also subjective and possibly naive. I think you’ll find that search engines and social websites are not public property.

  6. louiswi says:

    Considering the internet is more of a sewer pipe than a water pipe, I would think a bit of surveillance would be in order. IMHO, of course.

  7. Frilton Miedman says:

    louiswi Says:
    January 14th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
    “Considering the internet is more of a sewer pipe than a water pipe, I would think a bit of surveillance would be in order. IMHO, of course.”

    So, by this conclusion, you feel that an assessment of a location being “sewer-like” is grounds to bypass personal liberty.

    I’m not debating the semantics of whether or not the internet is wholesome, but the grounds on which you assess it’s ok to bypass personal liberty, privacy.

    If your neighbor or local authority feels the company you keep, the music you listen to, or the style you keep your hair or clothing in is “sewer-like”, this then means it’s ok for the Fed’s to bug your home, invade your home on a whim or stalk you in your daily travels?

    My concern, with the proven level of control that money has over our government, it’s just a goven the political or data censorship follows suit, as VennData points out with Rupert Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch, avid Koch could then easily convert freedom of information into a mass propaganda network just as Fox Network has become.

  8. louiswi says:

    This may be more about semantics. “a big of surveillance” should not be construed as censorship of any kind nor in invasion of privacy. “a bit of surveillance” in my mind would constitute the government kind of knowing what’s going on in general versus not knowing anything at all about what is going on.

    Regarding Fox Network, we have only one sewer line in the house and that is an outbound line. Thus, we do not have Fox coming into our home. More and more people are coming to this understanding- Fox Sewage is not welcome in the home.

  9. david_12321 says:

    Mexico has censorship of a kind. A couple were tortured, murdered, hung on the side of a bridge for what they posted on the net.

  10. Frilton Miedman says:


    Real life example being “net neutrality”, where several politicians whom “coincidentally” receive campaign funds from Comcast and other telecoms, had legislated to allow IP’s to decide what material, information and websites you’re allowed to access.

    Imagine if the political preference of your internet provider was contrary to your own, you want to look up information on your favorite candidate and all you can find is what your IP’s CEO decides is appropriate, smear campaigns against your candidate or misinformation, misdirection…the internet then becomes Fox Network, no more freedom of information.

  11. Jim C says:

    I’m not sure why the US isn’t marked as “under surveillance.” It is common knowledge that every packet goes through government monitoring.