( )
Note . In each model, the predictor was standardized, but the censoring rates were not. The censoring rates ranged from 0 to 1. The path coefficients reported are unstandardized. † indicates p < .1. * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01. *** indicates p < .001.
Our pre-registered mediational analyses (see SOM-III) suggest that essentialistic beliefs regarding people's stance on abortion rights might be at least one mediating mechanism explaining the fusion effect on selective censoring. In our pre-registration, we also proposed to test the fusion effect controlling for other identity-related measures. We accordingly report a model in which the predictive ability of all the identity-related measures are compared (see SOM-V). Nevertheless, because the measured variables are all strongly related both conceptually and empirically (see Table 2 ), after establishing that multicollinearity was not a problem, we examined whether each of these variables independently predicts selective censoring.
The foregoing analyses revealed that identity fusion with a cause is associated with a tendency to disproportionately censor online content that is incongruent with the cause. To test the pre-registered hypothesis that strongly fused individuals would also display a censoring bias against the authors of incongruent content, we examined a SEM model with two dependent variables corresponding to the binary indicators of whether the participant decided to ban the authors of incongruent, and congruent comments. Fusion was not significantly associated with banning the author of the incongruent comments (OR = 1.17, 95% CI = [0.95, 1.45], p = .14) or congruent comments (OR = 0.99, 95% CI = [0.78, 1.25], p = .90). The difference between the two paths, computed as two times the negative loglikelihood of the difference between the two paths, was not significant (χ 2 (1) = 1.18, p = .28), indicating that fusion was not associated with selectively censoring authors of incongruent comments. However, given that the non-significant coefficients of the two paths were in the predicted direction, it is possible that there exists a small effect that our sample was not sufficiently powered to detect.
To verify Study 1's exploratory finding and our pre-registered hypothesis that the offensiveness of comments would not moderate the effect of fusion on selective censoring, we modeled the paths from fusion to participants' censoring rates for four types of comments: Offensive-Congruent, Offensive-Incongruent, Inoffensive-Congruent, and Inoffensive-Incongruent (see Fig. 5 ).
Structural Equations Model examining the effect of identity fusion on selective censoring of incongruent vs. congruent comments among offensive and inoffensive comments (Study 2). Δ p and Δ q represent fusion's effects on selective censoring among offensive comments and inoffensive comments, respectively. The significant effects indicate that strongly fused people selectively censored incongruent comments whether the comments were offensive or inoffensive. See SOM-IV for path coefficients. * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01.
Among offensive comments, fusion was associated with selectively censoring incongruent comments over congruent comments (Δ p = p1 – p2 ; b = 0.04, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.06], p = .001). Similarly, among inoffensive comments, strongly fused individuals selectively censored incongruent comments (Δ q = q 1 – q 2; b = 0 .02, 95% CI = [0.005, 0.04], p = .008). (The four path coefficients are reported in SOM-IV). The two significant selective censoring effects suggest that strongly fused people's selective intolerance for incongruent comments was observable among both offensive and inoffensive comments. Comparing two selective censoring effects for offensive vs. inoffensive comments (Δ p – Δ q ) revealed a marginally significant difference (χ 2 (1) = 3.34, p = .07), suggesting that fusion's effect on selective censoring may have been larger for offensive than inoffensive comments. What is striking however is that as in Study 1, strongly fused people selectively censored incongruent comments even when the comments were inoffensive.
Thus far, we focused on the effects of identity fusion. Nevertheless, we conducted exploratory analyses testing the possibility that selective censoring of incongruent comments results from a constellation of identity-related processes. To test this possibility, we assessed the effects of attitude strength (attitude extremity, attitude centrality, attitude certainty, and attitude importance), moral conviction, and identification with supporters, which all index different aspects of people's alignment with a cause. Using the same approach as in the fusion analysis, we sequentially tested the relation of each of the seven predictors to selective censoring. Table 3 reports each model's path coefficients from the tested variable to censoring incongruent comments ( c 1 ) and to censoring congruent comments ( c 2 ). Table 3 also reports the chi-square difference between the two paths ( c 1 – c 2 ) indicating the extent to which the tested variable is associated with selectively censoring incongruent comments. The last column presents linear regression coefficients from alternate analyses testing the effect of each identity-related measure on the difference in participants' censoring rates for incongruent vs. congruent comments.
As indicated by the significant chi-square differences (Δ c ) and the significant regression coefficients ( b ) in Table 3 , each of the constructs produced selective censoring similar to the fusion effects, which is preliminary evidence that broader identity-related processes motivate selective censoring.
Interestingly, most of the predictors (attitude certainty, attitude centrality, attitude extremity, identification with cause supporters, and moral conviction) were negatively associated with censoring congruent comments (see c 2 coefficients in Table 3 ), indicating that they produce a tendency to be lenient toward congruent comments. On the contrary, fusion and attitude importance were not correlated with censoring congruent comments; instead, they were positively associated with censoring incongruent comments (see c 1 coefficients in Table 3 ), implying that these constructs were associated with an intolerance for incongruent comments. We speculate that a preference for congruent content and an intolerance against incongruent content reflect two independent mechanisms leading to selective censorship of incongruent comments.
We tested another SEM model (not pre-registered) similar to the fusion analysis to assess the effect of people's stance on abortion rights (pro-choice vs. pro-life). Unlike Study 1, pro-choice participants selectively censored incongruent comments as much as pro-life participants (χ 2 (1) = 2.38, p = .12), which may be due to higher threat levels among pro-choice participants following the, 2018 nomination Justice Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That is, owing to the conservative shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court in, 2018, pro-choice participants in Study 2 may have generally faced higher threat relative to Study 1, which could have increased their tendency to selectively censor pro-life comments. There was also no difference in fusion levels among pro-choice and pro-life participants ( t (537) = 0.59, p = .56, d = 0.07).
Study 2 replicated Study 1's main findings that people censor online content that is incongruent with their own political views and that strongly fused individuals are especially likely to selectively censor incongruent content. Strongly fused people's tendency to selectively censor incongruent comments was robust for both offensive and inoffensive comments. Contrary to Study 1, we did not find evidence that pro-life participants selectively censored more than pro-choice participants, which we believe could be due to the socio-political environment during Study 2 data collection.
In addition to replicating Study 1 effects, Study 2 also examined people's willingness to ban the authors of incongruent vs. congruent comments from the forum. We found that cause supporters selectively banned the author who consistently posted cause-incongruent content. Contrary to our hypothesis, this effect was not amplified by fusion. This may have been because banning authors is a relatively extreme action that participants in our samples generally did not endorse. Conceivably, there is a small association of fusion with selective censoring of authors that our sample was underpowered to detect.
Finally, the study found that the selective censoring effect extends to an array of identity-related measures in the literature. The findings also indicate that there may be different paths to selective censorship of opposing content: Whereas fusion and attitude importance were associated with an increased tendency to censor incongruent comments, the other identity-related predictors were associated with a weaker tendency to censor congruent comments.
In short, the results of Study 2 replicated the selective censoring effect that emerged in Study 1. A potential limitation of these studies, however, is that both focused on an issue rooted in religious values, abortion rights. To address this, Study 3 focused on gun rights. The gun-rights issue was particularly relevant in the time that the study was conducted because gun sales peaked during the COVID-19 crisis ( Collins and Yaffe-Bellany, 2020 ).
The method used in Study 3 resembled those used in previous studies except that we used a more controlled manipulation of comment offensiveness that kept the content of the comments constant. Whereas in Study 2 comments were categorized as offensive or inoffensive based on coders' ratings, in Study 3, for each inoffensive comment, we generated an offensive version by adding offensive phrases. In this way, the content of inoffensive and comments was identical except for offensive language. Finally, as in Study 2, we assessed whether the selective censoring effect of fusion generalized to other identity-related measures such as indices of attitude strength, moral conviction, and identification with cause supporters.
8.1. power analysis.
As mentioned in our pre-registration (see https://osf.io/x3w7h/?view_only=a25d722f3a03405e9e4f074a622b10b4 ), an a priori power analysis conducted using Monte Carlo simulations indicated that a sample of 325 participants was required to detect the selective censoring effect detected in Study 2 with an alpha of 0.05 and 80% power. Given the longitudinal nature of the study, we estimated that approximately 30% of the sample would either drop out between T1 and T2 or fail attention checks, and so we decided to recruit 460 participants at T1.
8.2.1. participants.
A sample of 466 participants (49.6% female; 67.0% White; M age = 31.18; SD age = 11.14) from Prolific Academic completed the first part of the study in May 2020. Participants' views on gun rights were measured in the T1 survey (370 pro-gun-control and 96 pro-gun-rights participants).
Participants completed the identity fusion scale for their position on gun rights (either pro-gun or anti-gun) on a seven-point scale (α = 0.93). Using the measures used in Study 2, we measured four facets of attitude strength – attitude extremity, attitude centrality, attitude certainty and attitude importance, moral conviction, and identification with cause supporters (α = 0.86). The order of presentation of the above constructs was randomized. Means, standard deviations, and inter-variable correlations are reported in Table 5 . Finally, they provided demographic information.
Means, standard deviations, and correlations with confidence intervals in Study 3 (N = 371).
Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Fusion with cause | 3.45 | 1.43 | ||||||||
2. Attitude extremity | 7.62 | 1.36 | 0.31 | |||||||
3 Attitude centrality | 6.75 | 1.84 | 0.49 | 0.53 | ||||||
4. Attitude certainty | 7.58 | 1.46 | 0.38 | 0.69 | 0.55 | |||||
5. Attitude importance | 6.55 | 1.79 | 0.61 | 0.55 | 0.73 | 0.59 | ||||
6. Moral conviction | 3.37 | 1.03 | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.68 | 0.54 | 0.56 | |||
7. Identification with cause supporters | 5.65 | 1.06 | 0.50 | 0.63 | 0.56 | 0.63 | 0.61 | 0.57 | ||
8. Rate of censoring congruent comments | 0.28 | 0.18 | −0.04 | −0.01 | −0.05 | −0.01 | −0.04 | −0.06 | −0.04 | |
9. Rate of censoring incongruent comments | 0.37 | 0.20 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.56 |
Note . The censoring rates, ranging from 0 to 1, refer to the proportion of comments of each type (congruent and incongruent) that participants censored. Fusion's effect on selective censoring is the difference between fusion's association with the censoring rates of congruent and incongruent comments. This effect was not moderated by position on gun rights. * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01.
8.3.1. participants.
Two weeks after completing the T1 survey, participants were able to complete a “Comment Moderation Task”. A total of 373 participants completed the task. Two participants who completed less than 50% of the task were excluded, leaving us with a final sample of 371 participants (52.85% female; 66.85% White; M age = 31.45; SD age = 11.61; 297 pro-gun-control and 74 pro-gun-rights participants). A sensitivity analysis revealed that our sample had 85% power to detect the fusion effect on selective censoring reported in Study 2. We found a difference in fusion levels between people who did vs. did not complete the T2 session such that individuals who completed T2 were more fused with the cause ( t (462) = 2.01, p = .05, d = −0.23).
As in the previous studies, we asked participants to help moderators of a college-run discussion forum identify inappropriate posts for removal. We gathered 14 pro-gun-rights comments and 14 pro-gun-control comments from the internet, resulting in 28 comments. We created offensive and inoffensive versions of each comment by including or excluding offensive phrases. Participants read either the offensive or inoffensive version of each of the 28 comments. Overall, participants read four types of comments ( N = 7 for each type): Offensive-Pro-gun-rights, Inoffensive-Pro-gun-rights, Offensive-Pro-gun-control, and Inoffensive-Pro-gun-control (See Table 4 for example comments). As in Study 2, each comment was accompanied by a user icon and timestamp like in real online forums. The pro-gun-rights comments were all posted by a single user, and the pro-gun-control comments were all posted by another user. As in the previous studies, for each comment, participants recommended deletion or retention. After evaluating all comments, participants were also asked whether the two users whose comments they read should be banned from the blog (“Ban this user from the blog” or “Do not ban this user from the blog”). Finally, participants rated how much they doubted that the forum was not real on a five-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = a great deal). The mean rating ( M = 2.65, SD = 0.99) was lower than the mid-point of the scale (i.e., 3 = A moderate amount; t(366) = −6.77, p < .001, d = −0.35), suggesting that participants generally did not doubt the veracity of the paradigm.
Sample comments rated by participants in Study 3. The study included 28 comments (14 pro-gun-rights and 14 pro-gun-control), each of which had an offensive and an inoffensive version. Participants rated either the offensive or inoffensive version of each of the 28 comments. The comments were presented in the format illustrated in Fig. 3 and in random order.
Sample comments rated by Participant 1 | Sample comments rated by Participant 2 | |
---|---|---|
Pro-gun-rights | : We must defend the right to keep and bear arms through communication and coordinated action, retarded dumbasses like you just don't get it. [ ] : Everyone should be pro gun. Pro gun = pro freedom. Pro gun = anti tyranny. [ ] | : We must defend the inherent right to keep and bear arms through communication and coordinated action. [ ] : You're must be an unfixable dumbfuck if you don't get this: Pro gun = pro freedom. Pro gun = anti tyranny. [ ] |
Pro-gun-control | - : Why aren't guns and, oh yeah, assault rifles banned? Why aren't you banned? It is unbelievable that this has been allowed to continue. I am mortified that you exist. Enough is enough! #guncontrol #fuckguns [ ] - : I don't care about Thoughts and Prayers. It's just a phrase that people use instead of “Thoughts and Actions”. [ ] | - : Why aren't guns and specifically assault rifles banned? It is unbelievable that this has been allowed to continue. Enough is enough! #guncontrol #nomoreguns [ ] - : I Don't Give a Fuck About Your Thoughts and Prayers. It's just a shitty, waste of words that people use instead of “Thoughts and Actions”. [ ] |
For each participant, we calculated censoring rates corresponding to comments congruent and incongruent with their own position on guns. For the offensiveness-related analyses, we also computed censoring rates for each of the four types of comments (Offensive-Congruent, Offensive-Incongruent, Inoffensive-Congruent, and Inoffensive-Incongruent). Overall, participants censored offensive comments ( M = 0.58, SD = 0.28) more than inoffensive comments ( M = 0.07, SD = 0.12; t (370) = 33.98, p < .001¸ d = 2.27) indicating that the offensiveness manipulation was successful. The censoring rates for offensive and inoffensive comments were correlated albeit more weakly than in Study 1 ( r (369) = 0.17, p < .001).
9.1. did people selectively censor comments incongruent with their cause and the comments' authors.
We tested the pre-registered hypothesis that people would selectively censor incongruent comments more than congruent comments. We conducted a paired t -test comparing the censoring rates for incongruent vs. congruent comments. Replicating findings from the first two studies, people censored more incongruent comments ( M = 36.97%; SD = 19.64) than congruent comments ( M = 27.88%; SD = 17.62), t (370) = 10.02, p < .001, d = 0.49.
We also conducted a pre-registered analysis testing whether people were disproportionately willing to ban the author of the incongruent comments relative to the author of the congruent comments. Contrary to our hypothesis and the results of Study 1, we did not find a significant difference (χ 2 (1) = 1.92, p = .17). Nevertheless, the means trended in the expected direction. That is, 32.69% of participants banned the user who posted incongruent comments as opposed to just 29.51% who banned the user posting congruent comments.
To test our pre-registered hypothesis that strongly fused individuals would be especially likely to selectively censor incongruent comments, we tested a SEM model (see Fig. 6 ) with residual covariances between the censoring rates. (Alternate analyses treating the difference between censoring rates of incongruent and congruent comments as the selective censoring index, reported in Table 6 below and in SOM-II, result in the same findings). As in Studies 1 and 2, we standardized the predictors in all the SEM analyses, and we report unstandardized regression coefficients. Fusion positively (but not significantly) predicted censoring incongruent comments ( c 1 path; b = 0.02, 95% CI = [−0.004, 0.04], p = .12) but not censoring congruent comments ( c 2 path; b = −0.006, 95% CI = [−0.02, 0.01], p = .49). The difference between the fusion effects on censoring incongruent vs. congruent comments was significant, (Δ c = c 1 - c 2 ; χ 2 (1) = 6.01, p = .01), which is evidence that fusion is associated with selective censoring. To illustrate, participants who were strongly fused (+ 1 SD ) censored 41.47% of the incongruent comments they read but only 28.56% of the congruent comments. Weakly fused participants censored 35.92% of the incongruent comments and 29.52% of the congruent comments, indicating weaker selective censoring. The effect of fusion on selective censoring remained significant when we controlled for whether participants favored pro-gun-rights or pro-gun-control (χ 2 (1) = 9.24, p = .002), and the effect was not moderated by position on gun rights (χ 2 (1) = 0.05, p = .83).
Path coefficients (c 1 and c 2 ) and Chi-sq values (χ 2 ) of SEM models and coefficients from regression models testing the effects of each identity-related measure on selective censoring (Study 3). Note that each model included only one predictor.
Predictor in model | Semantic equation modeling (SEM) | Selective Censoring difference index ( ) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Censoring incongruent comments ( ) | Censoring congruent comments ( ) | Selective censoring (Δ = - ) χ | ||
Model 1: Fusion with cause | 0.02 | −0.006 | 6.01 | 0.02 |
Model 2: Attitude importance | 0.03 | −0.01 | 13.45 | 0.03 |
Model 3: Attitude certainty | 0.03 | −0.002 | 9.86 | 0.03 |
Model 4: Attitude centrality | 0.02 | −0.01 | 11.26 | 0.03 |
Model 5: Attitude extremity | 0.02 | −0.002 | 7.01 | 0.02 |
Model 6: Identification with cause supporters | 0.02 | −0.007 | 5.51 | 0.02 |
Model 7: Moral conviction | 0.01 | −0.01 | 7.33 | 0.03 |
Note . In each model, the predictor was standardized, but the censoring rates were not. The censoring rates ranged from 0 to 1. The path coefficients reported are unstandardized. * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01. *** indicates p < .001.
Structural Equations Model depicting the effect of identity fusion on selective censoring of incongruent vs. congruent comments (Study 3). The c 1 and c 2 paths represent the effects of fusion on censoring incongruent and congruent comments respectively. The significant difference between the two paths (Δ c ) indicates that fusion is associated with selectively censoring incongruent comments. * indicates p < .05.
As in the previous studies and consistent with the pre-registration, we modeled the paths from fusion to participants' censoring rates for four types of comments: Offensive-Congruent, Offensive-Incongruent, Inoffensive-Congruent, and Inoffensive-Incongruent (see Fig. 7 ). Among inoffensive comments, fusion was associated with selectively censoring incongruent comments over congruent comments (Δ q = q1 – q2 ; b = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.009, 0.04], p = .003). Among offensive comments, the effect was in the predicted direction but not significant (Δ p = p 1 – p 2; b = 0 .02, 95% CI = [−0.007, 0.04], p = .16). (The four path coefficients are reported in SOM-IV). Comparing two selective censoring effects for offensive vs. inoffensive comments (Δ p – Δ q ) revealed no difference (χ 2 (1) = 0.39, p = .53).
Structural Equations Model examining the effect of identity fusion on selective censoring of incongruent vs. congruent comments among offensive and inoffensive comments (Study 3). Δ p and Δ q represent fusion's effects on selective censoring among offensive comments and inoffensive comments, respectively. The difference between them was not significant, which indicates that comment offensiveness did not moderate fusion's effect on selective censoring. See SOM-IV for path coefficients. ** indicates p < .01.
We then tested our pre-registered hypothesis that fusion's effect on selective censoring would extend to seven identity-related measures. Using models similar to the fusion analysis, we tested the effect of each predictor on selective censoring. Table 6 reports each model's path coefficients from the tested variable to censoring incongruent ( c 1 ) and congruent ( c 2 ) comments, and the chi-square difference between the two paths ( c 1 – c 2 ) indicating the extent to which the tested variable is associated with selective censoring. The last column in Table 6 presents linear regression coefficients from alternate models testing the effect of each identity-related measures on the difference between participants' censoring rates for incongruent and congruent comments. The significant chi-square differences (Δ c ) and regression coefficients ( b ) indicate that the selective censoring effect generalized to each of the seven identity-related measures. In contrast to Study 2, the selective censoring effect was largely driven by positive associations between the identity-related measures and censoring incongruent comments.
We tested another exploratory SEM model to assess the effect of people's stance on gun rights (pro-gun-rights vs. pro-gun-control). Gun-control supporters selectively censored incongruent comments more than gun-rights supporters (χ 2 (1) = 17.09, p < .001) even though pro-gun- rights supporters tended to be more strongly fused than pro-gun- control supporters ( t (367) = 2.18, p = .03, d = 0.28). Study 3 was conducted during a period that saw increased gun sales ( Collins and Yaffe-Bellany, 2020 ), which should have increased the threat perceived by gun-control supporters, increasing their tendency to selectively censor opposition.\.
Study 3 demonstrated that the selective censoring effect extends to issues beyond religiously tinged issues such as abortion rights. Specifically, people selectively censored comments that opposed their views on the gun rights debate, and this effect was amplified among people who were strongly fused with their cause. As in Studies 1 and 2, people selectively censored incongruent comments even when they were inoffensive. Contrary to Study 2, we did not find a significant selective censoring effect on offensive comments, but it could be that our study was underpowered to detect this effect. Further, gun-control proponents selectively censored more than gun-rights proponents, which when taken together with Studies 1 and 2, suggests that people's willingness to selectively censor may depend on the cause at hand (pro-choice or pro-gun-control) and the political context (e.g., level of threat faced by the cause) rather than political ideology (left or right).
Study 3 also replicated the Study 2 finding that selective censoring extends to a range of identity related constructs including attitude strength, identification with supporters, and moral conviction. Nevertheless, we did not find similar results across Studies 2 and 3 regarding the degree to which each identity-related process produced a lenience toward congruent content or an intolerance of incongruent content. Future research will need to disentangle the links between identity related processes and selective censoring.
The current research provides an initial glimpse into how people censor political opponents when moderating online content. Specifically, in three studies, participants who were asked to moderate an online forum deleted approximately 5–12% more identity-incongruent, relative to identity-congruent, comments from putative online forums. Moreover, we found weak evidence that participants were about 3–5% points more likely to ban authors of incongruent as compared to congruent comments. These findings transcend past research on selective exposure and avoidance ( Bakshy et al., 2015 ; Garrett, 2009a ; van der Linden, 2017 ) because censorship is a particularly extreme action that affects not just one's own online environment but also the environments of other people. Furthermore, unlike traditional censorship enforced only by the state ( Bonsaver, 2007 ; Fishburn, 2008 ), the decentralized nature of this new form of censorship implemented by independent users could make it easy to overlook and thus potentially more insidious.
Our evidence that people censor the social media posts of political opponents is consistent with recent evidence that the salutary impact of intergroup contact on intergroup harmony ( Paluck et al., 2018 ) may not extend to online interactions ( Bail et al., 2018 ). We also show, however, that selective censorship of opponents' comments was amplified among people whose cause-related views were firmly rooted in their identities. Strongly fused participants deleted approximately 13–18% more identity-incongruent than identity-congruent comments, while weakly fused participants were much less biased (0–9%). Strikingly, strongly fused individuals disproportionately censored opponents' comments even when the comments conveyed opposing views in an inoffensive and courteous manner. The identity-driven effect on selective censoring generalized to six other identity-related measures including indices of attitude strength, moral conviction, and identification with cause supporters. The converging results across the various predictors suggest that selective censoring results from a combination of several identity-related processes.
Future research might work toward developing a theoretical model of selective censoring that elaborates the relationships between various identity-related processes. Such work might also investigate the two possible mechanisms underlying selective censoring: lenience toward congruent content versus intolerance of incongruent content. Future researchers might also follow up on our evidence that strongly fused participants were especially apt to censor opponents' comments but not their opponents themselves . Also, perhaps people ban individuals based on their most offensive comment rather than based on evaluating multiple comments. Further, whereas we focused on identity-related processes, future research might consider other processes such as expectations regarding the content online subscribers of a given forum prefer ( Haselmayer et al., 2017 ) that may also contribute to moderators' selective censoring.
The censorship effects described here could have considerable impact on online forums and communities that millions of people follow. Studies of moderators have noted that a small number of them govern very large online communities and that they hold enormous power over their communities ( Frith, 2014 ; Matias, 2016b ). Still, past work on moderators has largely focused on how people become moderators ( Shaw and Hill, 2014 ), and the nature of their roles ( Berge and Collins, 2000 ; Colladon and Vagaggini, 2017 ; Frith, 2014 ) and struggles ( Matias, 2016a ). Although some case studies have examined abuse of power by moderators ( Yang, 2019 ), including anecdotal evidence of politically motivated censorship ( Wright, 2006 ), the current research is the first systematic investigation of censoring among people who moderate online communities. This investigation is consequential because selective censoring that favors the viewpoints of a small number of moderators could produce huge biases in the content that millions see. Indeed, censoring by powerful moderators can give onlookers who are not aware that censoring has occurred a false sense of the views of the people in an online community and who belongs there.
Still, our findings may generalize beyond the groups of people who serve as moderators of large online communities or forums. The millions of people who own blogs, YouTube channels, and social media pages, can moderate others' comments on the platforms they control. Even regular social media users can moderate others' comments on their own posts. Of course, in our studies, participants were explicitly given the goal of deleting inappropriate comments. Because most regular social media users may not experience a strong deletion-focused goal, they may censor less than moderators do. Nevertheless, the collective impact of each of these individuals' censoring could produce substantial consequences.
We believe censorship is a potentially overlooked factor in the heightened political polarization our culture is witnessing. This could have important ramifications. For example, selective censoring could lead to a lack of exposure to different viewpoints, creating echo chambers and causing people to develop increasingly extreme opinions ( Price et al., 2006 ) and to overestimate the prevalence of their own viewpoints ( Ross et al., 1977 ). In addition, opponents of causes may witness the increased extremism of inhabitants of the echo chamber and respond in kind by adopting extreme opposing views of their own ( Bail et al., 2018 ). These processes may reinforce themselves, producing more and more polarization over time ( Allcott et al., 2020 ). Censorship could also have implications for the people being censored, who may feel marginalized and become disengaged from the online community or be less likely to share his or her views in the future. Future studies should examine the consequences of selective censoring in online contexts.
Contemporary pundits often blame the apparent increase in polarization on “the internet” or “social media.” Researchers have found some basis for such assertions by demonstrating that internet users are indeed selectively exposed to evidence that would lend support to their views. Our findings move beyond this literature by demonstrating that moderators employ censorship to not only bring online content into harmony with their values, but to actively advance their causes and attack opponents of their causes. From this vantage point, those whose political beliefs are rooted in their identities are not passive participants in online polarization; rather, they are agentic actors who actively curate online environments by censoring content that challenges their ideological positions. By providing a window into the psychological processes underlying these processes, our research may open up a broader vista of related processes for systematic study.
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation [grants BCS-1124382 and BCS1528851 to William B. Swann, Jr.], an Advanced Grant from the European Research Council 694986 to Michael Buhrmester, and grant by Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades RTI2018-093550-B-I00 to Angel Gomez. The funders played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.
We thank Elliot Tucker-Drob and Greg Hixon for their help with the data analysis.
All study materials and data used in this research have been made publicly available and can be accessed at https://osf.io/4jtwk/?view_only=10627a9892464e5aa90fe92360b846ad . The design, methods, and analysis plan of Studies 2 and 3 were pre-registered, and these can be viewed at https://osf.io/2jvau?view_only=754165d77cbe4e69baf6b11740b1a422 and https://osf.io/x3w7h/?view_only=a25d722f3a03405e9e4f074a622b10b4 respectively.
☆This paper has been recommended for acceptance by Ashwini Ashokkumar
1 Selective censorship can occur as a result of two processes: greater censoring of cause-incongruent content and/or less censoring of cause-congruent content. We did not have an a priori hypothesis regarding which of these selective censoring processes fusion would amplify.
2 Note that the data were collected before reports of drop in the quality of the MTurk participant pool surfaced in, 2018 ( TurkPrime, 2018 ).
3 When designing the Study 1 materials, we did not ensure that the three types of comments (i.e., pro-choice, pro-life, and irrelevant comments) were equally offensive. For example, the post-hoc offensiveness ratings suggest that the pro-life comments may have been generally less offensive than the pro-choice and irrelevant comments. For this reason, the estimates of censoring obtained in Study 2, in which we systematically varied offensiveness a priori, are more trustworthy.
4 In Studies 2 and 3, we excluded participants who responded to fewer than 50% of the comments because their censoring rates are likely to be inaccurate estimates. Note that this exclusion criterion was not pre-registered. In both studies, including these participants did not alter our findings.
Appendix A Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104031 .
Supplementary material
Article sidebar.
Article details.
Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
Advertisement
Supported by
the new new world
The number of Chinese websites is shrinking and posts are being removed and censored, stoking fears about what happens when history is erased.
Chinese people know their country’s internet is different. There is no Google, YouTube, Facebook or Twitter. They use euphemisms online to communicate the things they are not supposed to mention. When their posts and accounts are censored, they accept it with resignation.
They live in a parallel online universe. They know it and even joke about it.
Now they are discovering that, beneath a facade bustling with short videos, livestreaming and e-commerce, their internet — and collective online memory — is disappearing in chunks.
A post on WeChat on May 22 that was widely shared reported that nearly all information posted on Chinese news portals, blogs, forums, social media sites between 1995 and 2005 was no longer available.
“The Chinese internet is collapsing at an accelerating pace,” the headline said. Predictably, the post itself was soon censored.
“We used to believe that the internet had a memory,” He Jiayan, a blogger who writes about successful businesspeople, wrote in the post. “But we didn’t realize that this memory is like that of a goldfish.”
It’s impossible to determine exactly how much and what content has disappeared. But I did a test. I used China’s top search engine, Baidu, to look up some of the examples cited in Mr. He’s post, focusing on about the same time frame between the mid-1990s and mid-2000s.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in .
Want all of The Times? Subscribe .
Call For Papers [Main Conference]
Submission link and the pdf of Call-for-Papers will be posted soon.
IEEE INFOCOM 2025 is scheduled to take place in London, United Kingdom. This event will be conducted in person, allowing attendees to fully immerse themselves in the conference experience. However, we understand that some authors may encounter travel difficulties, such as obtaining visas. In such cases, assistance for remote presentation of their papers will be considered upon approval by the General Chairs. Virtual participation in the conference will no longer be supported.
IEEE INFOCOM is a top-ranked networking conference of the IEEE Communications Society. IEEE INFOCOM 2025 solicits research papers describing significant and innovative research contributions to the field of computer and data communication networks. We invite submissions on a wide range of research topics, spanning both theoretical and systems research. Topics include but are not limited to:
IEEE INFOCOM incorporates a rigorous double-blind review process, empowered by a fully automated review assignment system that analyzes the submitted manuscripts and the representative publications of TPC members and matches the submissions to TPC members’ expertise and interests. The automated review assignment system, termed Erie, is described in the following paper.
B. Li and Y. T. Hou. “The new automated INFOCOM review assignment system,” IEEE Network, vol.30, no.5, pp.18-24, Sept./Oct. 2016. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7579022/
Papers that present data that include experiments on or with humans or animals and/or presentation or analysis of personally identifiable information, including aggregated data, must have the appropriate approval from the author(s)’ institution(s). An explicit statement about the approval must be included in the paper (with appropriate anonymization in the paper submitted for review).
The submitted manuscript or its title/abstract should not be posted on a public website, such as arXiv.org, or transmitted via public mailing lists.
Before submission, please update your CoIs in the EDAS system. A CoI occurs when a person’s objective judgment is — or is perceived by a reasonable observer — compromised by an existing relationship, affiliation, or connection to a person whose work they must evaluate.
The following are considered to be specific examples of relationships that produce CoIs. Individuals in such relationships should not be involved in peer review of, or making editorial decisions about, materials provided by the related parties.
The maximum number of papers an author can submit to IEEE INFOCOM 2025 is five . Accepted and presented papers will be published in the IEEE INFOCOM 2025 Conference Proceedings and submitted to IEEE Xplore®. Submitted papers must be written in English, with a maximum length limit of 10 printed pages . The main text (including figures, tables, appendices, and any material other than references) must be no more than 9 pages . Papers that do not comply with the length limit will not be reviewed. Use the standard IEEE Transactions templates for Microsoft Word or LaTeX formats found at: https://www.ieee.org/conferences/publishing/templates.html
If the paper is typeset in LaTeX, please use an unmodified version of the LaTeX template IEEEtran.cls version 1.8, and use the preamble: \documentclass[10pt, conference, letterpaper]{ IEEEtran }
Do not use additional LaTeX commands or packages to override and change the default typesetting choices in the template, including line spacing, font sizes, margins, space between the columns, and font types. This implies that the manuscript must use 10-point Times font, two-column formatting, as well as all default margins and line spacing requirements as dictated by the original version of IEEEtran.cls version 1.8. If you are using Microsoft Word to format your paper, you should use an unmodified version of the Microsoft Word IEEE Transactions template (US letter size). Regardless of the source of your paper formatting, you must submit your paper in Adobe PDF format.
The paper must print clearly and legibly, including all the figures, on standard black-and-white printers. Reviewers are not required to read your paper in color. The submitted manuscript should be self-contained. Inclusion of additional material (e.g., a technical report containing the detailed math proof through an anonymous Dropbox or OneDrive link) is not allowed.
Abstract Due: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 (11:59pm, PDT) Full Paper Due: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 (11:59pm, PDT) Notification of Acceptance: Friday, December 6, 2024
Accepted and presented papers will be published in the IEEE INFOCOM 2025 Conference Proceedings and submitted to IEEE Xplore®. Full details regarding the submission procedures and requirements are available at https://infocom2025.ieee-infocom.org/. The submission website will be posted soon.
Carla Chiasserini (Politecnico di Torino, Italy) Aaron Striegel (University of Notre Dame, USA) Lei Ying (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA)
Huacheng Zeng (Michigan State University, USA)
17 Pages Posted: 2 Jul 2020
Independent
Date Written: August 26, 2019
The advent of internet has brought the fastest way of accessing information and connecting with each other. The internet has made everyone a publisher of their own. The number of people who use internet as their way of expression is comparatively more than the one who uses the traditional media. This popularity of internet made government to exercise control over it. This gives birth to the concept of Internet Censorship. Internet Censorship is good for eradicating social evils over the internet like pornography, fake news, bullying etc. There are some Information Technology Laws in India used for the punishment of such crime but if these provisions are used in the name of regulations to promote agenda of a political party which is not in the interest of public at large, it would amount to violation of Fundamental Rights. On the other hand an unrestricted internet will be no less than a disaster caused by humans. In this paper the researchers have attempted to discuss the battle between the Freedom of speech and Expression versus Internet Censorship. In furtherance of it, the paper detailed about the incidents of online censorship involving politics and other corrupt practices. The views in the paper are neither inclined over the Freedom of speech nor over the censorship. Thus it also includes elaboration on the question that why internet censorship is required in today’s era? Some of the judicial pronouncements and day to day incidents are also discussed to explain this tussle between the individual’s freedom and Internet censorship.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Independent ( email ), do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on ssrn, paper statistics, related ejournals, public international law: human rights ejournal.
Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic
India law ejournal, legal anthropology: laws & constitutions ejournal, communication law & policy ejournal, comparative political economy: regulation ejournal, visual anthropology, media studies & performance ejournal, human rights ejournal.
Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic
Research libraries in cambridge and across the country are hurrying to collect sexual ephemera from americans’ pasts, before it’s too late..
H ARVARD’S SCHLESINGER LIBRARY didn’t set out to be a repository of 1980s pornographic history.
It all started with the death of the feminist pornographer Candida Royalle. In 2015, the library’s then-director, Jane Kamensky, spotted Royalle’s obituary in The New York Times, which described her work as “female-oriented, sensuously explicit cinema as opposed to formulaic hard-core pornographic films that she said degraded women for the pleasure of men.”
Kamensky , intrigued, wrangled an invitation to Royalle’s memorial service, where she kept hearing allusions to a rich collection of diaries, letters, and other material. Soon, Kamensky persuaded Royalle’s friend, the writer and sex worker Veronica Vera, to give Royalle’s papers to the library, which specializes in the history of women.
The Royalle archive includes everything from Royalle’s Femme line of adult films to her testimony during government obscenity investigations in the 1980s. It has videos of her Phil Donahue Show appearances, products from her sex toy line, and letters to fellow directors, friends, and family.
Once Royalle’s archive landed at the library, “There was a kind of flood” of sex and pornography-related materials to Schlesinger , Kamensky says, including papers from the late First Amendment advocate and adult film star Gloria Leonard .
Advertisement
But the collecting isn’t just at Harvard. As anti-porn laws sweep the United States, librarians and archivists across the country are vacuuming up the sexual ephemera from Americans’ pasts, trying to preserve the remnants of pre-internet pornography.
It’s all a relatively new development: In the 1960s, with the rise of the field of social history in academia, there was a turn across disciplines toward collecting materials from ordinary people and those who were less wealthy to study “history from the bottom up,” as the late historian Jesse Lemisch famously put it. But it’s only within the past decade that more institutions have been creating their own archives devoted to what once was nearly always thrown out.
“Sex archives are having a moment,” says Lynn Comella , a professor of gender and sexuality studies. She helped found the Sexual Entertainment and Economies collection at University of Nevada, Las Vegas, which opened its doors earlier this year. “Sexual history is history, and this message is beginning to resonate more widely with people both in and outside the adult industry.”
The more recent collections — at Harvard’s Schlesinger library, UNLV, and the University of Toronto, which began building its Sexual Representation Collection around 2018 — join a few longstanding archives including Cornell’s Human Sexuality Collection , which opened in 1988, and The Kinsey Institute at Indiana University , which dates to 1947.
Recently, Kinsey acquired the collection of the late Cynthia “Plaster Caster” Albritton , an artist and self-described “recovering groupie” who made plaster molds of famous musicians’ penises, starting with Jimi Hendrix. (In the 2000s, Albritton began making molds of female musicians’ breasts as well.) Her collection was particularly rich: bronze casts and plaster molds, diaries, and her personal library of books.
Critics of such collections say public funds or tuition dollars shouldn’t be paying for them. Even Kinsey, the nation’s first major collection of sexual materials at a public university, has been on shaky ground. In May of last year, the institute was defunded by the Indiana Legislature for the first time since its founding more than seven decades ago, which means it now mostly has to rely on grants and donations.
“We’re in a place culturally right now where people are still weaponizing knowing about sex, knowing about our bodies,” says Kinsey curator Rebecca Fasman .
So what are the benefits of saving breast and penis casts — or such films as Bisexual Buggery (1969), Dr. Longpeter (1947), and The Foxy Fireman (1952), as Kinsey does? Why preserve Space Virgins (1984) and Debbie Does Dallas Part II (1981) as the Library of Congress does within its collection of more than 200 pornographic films?
“Without primary source materials on assorted sexual topics and populations and practices, there is no scholarship: only speculation and assumptions and prejudices and gossip,” says Gayle Rubin, an associate professor of anthropology and women’s studies at the University of Michigan . When Rubin was studying leather culture in the gay community in San Francisco, she had to collect her own archives, which was common for sexuality scholars in the 1970s, ‘80s, and ‘90s. Rubin thinks that archives such as UNLV’s help researchers create “better, deeper, more evidence-based histories of queer and other sexual populations” than was possible a few decades ago.
UNLV has received some important donations, including the archives of Brian Gross, an adult industry publicist, and the records of Norma Jean Almodovar, who advocated for sex workers’ rights. Because of its small budget, Comella had to fund-raise for the collection’s launch in January. One of the donors: legal brothel The Chicken Ranch.
Porn is so prevalent now that it is probably having a greater effect on people than it did a century ago. For example, rough sex in porn has normalized the practice and may have contributed to the marked — and sometimes dangerous — increase in teens doing so in real life, according to surveys.
One of the questions porn archives can help answer is: Does pornography hold a mirror to our culture or does it shape it? Does it cause social and sexual problems or merely reflect those that already exist?
Comella, from UNLV, believes the answer to the question is both: porn reflects people’s desires and shapes them. Jackie Strano , cofounder of S.I.R. Video Productions, a lesbian porn company created in the 1990s, was working at San Francisco’s Good Vibrations sex toy shop (which has locations in Brookline and Harvard Square) and saw that more and more straight couples were coming in to ask about “pegging” (though the term wasn’t popularized by sex columnist Dan Savage until years later). With partner Shar Rednour, Strano went on to make an instructional film about it, Bend Over Boyfriend, as “a direct response to growing interest in a specific sexual practice,” says Comella. At the same time, the movie helped bring the practice “out of the closet and introduce it to more couples.” Strano’s records of the world of 1990s and early 2000s adult film are now at UNLV.
“Pornography often shows existing sexual interests,” adds Amanda Gesselman of the Kinsey Institute . “But pornography can also shape viewers’ future sexual interests because pornography introduces and normalizes different activities and roles that viewers may not have been exposed to before.”
Overall, the types of things we like to watch on screen mostly haven’t changed all that much from the 1920s. “Anything that can be seen today they were doing then, too — and sometimes in even more adventurous and boundary-pushing ways,” says Peter Alilunas , associate professor of cinema studies at the University of Oregon and the author of Smutty Little Movies: The Creation and Regulation of Adult Video.
The first known instance of male-male penetration on film was in 1924′s Exclusive Sailor, says Patrick Keilty , former director of the University of Toronto’s Sexual Representation Collection. “There’s a long tradition of gay sailors.”
Keilty also cites examples of women being sexually empowered long before the sexual revolution, pointing to a 1940s video of a couple having sex that’s in Toronto’s Collection. “Her body language appears self-assured, relaxed, satisfied, and comfortable. There’s a casual way in which she seems in command and confident,” Keilty says.
What has changed is how we view the films, who is making them, and who has access to them.
In the early 1900s, porn was generally watched on celluloid films by groups of men in grind houses, secret basement viewing rooms. By the 1970s, it was viewed in public movie theaters by a wider crowd because by then, obscenity laws “are starting to come undone,” Keilty says. In the 1980s, porn films started being viewed in the home on TV, thanks to the advent of the VCR. Now, most of us have access to a full universe of porn on our smartphones.
The viewership spike is striking. In the 1970s, 45 percent of men and 28 percent of women ages 18-26 had seen an X-rated movie in the past year, according to an analysis of a General Social Survey . In 2008-2012, in the same age groups, 62 percent of men and 36 percent of women had. (Although respondents tend to underreport pornography viewing.)
The storytelling has changed too. In the early 1900s, most porn films were shorter and focused narrowly on sex acts, according to Alilunas.
In the 1950s and ‘60s, filmmakers evaded censorship by making “lab coat films.” In these movies, Keilty says, “Some doctor in a white lab coat comes out at the start of it and tells you why this film is educational.” But in the 1970s, when adult films were in movie theaters raking in millions, as Deep Throat did, they were longer and more narrative driven. ( Deep Throat was among the early films to earn an X-rating, originally introduced to alert parents to the presence of violence or sex, but soon a selling point on its own.)
In the 1980s, the industry was dominated by lower-cost VHS. By the DVD era in the 1990s and 2000s, “There was a re-emergence of sophisticated stories and larger budgets,” Alilunas says. There’s one throughline “in the history of media technology and that’s the broad, steady, and widespread demand by people that it include sexually explicit material.” Now, the porn industry is dominated by cheap-to-record 10 minute clips on “tube sites” such as Pornhub.
Archives show the struggles women have always had in the porn industry, both as actors and directors, and they document the shift in the adult industry to more female directors making films, although the percentage remains small.
At Harvard, Schlesinger’s archives of iconic 1980s-era feminist porn stars show that while in some ways porn was a woman’s world — actresses were generally paid more than men per scene — in other ways it was firmly a patriarchal place: Actresses didn’t have much of a say about what they did on screen; films were nearly always directed in service of the male gaze.
Royalle’s archive charts the course of the industry from the 1970s so-called porno chic era of Deep Throat through the 1980s, when Royalle began her own production company, one of the first female-driven porn companies, focused on female sexual pleasure and foreplay.
Before Kamensky brought Royalle’s archive to Harvard, almost all of the pornography-related materials in the collection were the perspectives of anti-porn feminists such as Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. So scholars who wanted to study pornography were met with one point of view: that of women who opposed it.
“We need to be able to study the difficult issues of women, gender, and sexuality from a 360 perspective,” says Kamensky, who recently published the biography Candida Royalle & the Sexual Revolution based on the collections at Harvard. With Royalle’s archive, “Now, you can assess that argument by looking [at] what women in the adult industry say about their own experience.”
Kamensky is primarily a historian of the American Revolution era, and she “had no intention” of writing about Royalle when her archive came in. But she decided to take a quick glance, she says. “From the first look at a randomly chosen diary from a randomly chosen box, it was clear that her life story did not fit any received narrative. So that it’s not a simple story of self-liberation and joy. And it’s also not a story only of victimization, and constraint,” Kamensky says. “[I saw] the potential for the material to redraw our narrative of the sexual revolution.”
Pornography also reflects and responds to world events. The University of Southern California’s archive of erotic physique photos and magazines gives a shifting account of what the ideal body was for gay men, librarian Michael C. Oliveira says. In the 1960s and ‘70s, the ideal male body was a thin one, but in the ‘80s, that changed. “You have HIV/AIDS hitting and people that are thin are probably sick, at least that’s what society feels,” Oliveira says. “And then all of a sudden you see people starting to bulk up, especially in the queer community.” That history is visible in porn.
KAMENSKY LEFT HARVARD earlier this year. But Schlesinger has been continuing to collect sex-related materials.
On a recent Wednesday afternoon, Schlesinger’s curator for gender and society, Jenny Gotwals , escorted me up a set of stairs to the third floor, where some unprocessed collections and archivists’ offices are. She pointed to “the AV graveyard,” a cubicle stuffed with a tape recorder, a gleaming silver reel-to-reel player with VHS and BETA tapes piled on top, a vintage film camera, and a boombox for CDs. A five-shelf metal bookcase holds rows of cardboard archival boxes. She showed me the collection of the newest sex-positive activist’s papers they’ve acquired: the records of Priscilla Alexander, who persuaded the National Organization of Women to form a committee on Prostitutes’ Rights. Among other achievements, Alexander spent four years at Geneva’s World Health Organization working on their Global Program on AIDS.
Gotwals directed me to Harvard’s other collection of porn, which is in Houghton Library, a repository of rare books and archives. There, I met curator Leslie A. Morris in her office, where a life mask of John Keats looks down from a shelf above her desk.
One problem she encounters is that few researchers or students know to look for pornographic material in Harvard’s collections, Morris says. When the library received a large recent donation of materials relating to sex and drug use, it staged an exhibition to alert people to the fact that it was available. Because, she says, “No one would associate this kind of material with Harvard.”
I asked Morris, who went to Catholic school, if she ever rejects materials for being too racy. “I don’t see it as my job to say, ‘this is too explicit,’” Morris says. “I mean, it is a reflection of a sexual practice that someone considers normal and enjoyable.” But she does sometimes have to pace herself. “I find I can’t look at a lot of this stuff for a long time, so I might spend half a day on it,” Morris says. “At times, I just don’t look too closely.”
Hallie Lieberman is a writer, sex historian, and the author of Buzz: A Stimulating History of the Sex Toy . Send comments to [email protected] .
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The paper is titled "Censored Planet: An Internet-wide, Longitudinal Censorship Observatory. " The research team also included former U-M computer science and engineering student Prerana Shenoy, and Katharina Kohls, an assistant professor at Radboud University in Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Despite being founded on ideals of freedom and openness, censorship on the internet is rampant, with more than 60 countries engaging in some form of state-sponsored censorship. A research project at the University of Cambridge is aiming to uncover the scale of this censorship, and to understand how it affects users and publishers of information.
Internet is regarded as an important issue that shapes free expression in today's volatile nature of human rights world (Momen 2020 ). In the digital age, authoritarian governments in the world always attempt to undermine political and social movement through the complete shutdown of the Internet or providing partial access to it.
His research focuses on Internet censorship in the Middle East and North Africa; exploring the impact of information and communication technologies on the Arab information societies; how the use of the Internet defies the social and political structures; and the potential systemic changes cyberspace can bring to real ...
Abstract and Figures. Internet is supposed to be born free, yet it is censored almost everywhere, and severely censored in a few countries. The tug-of-war on the Internet between censors and anti ...
Although authoritarian governments often employ a mix of increasingly sophisticated censorship tactics (e.g., removing a tweet versus demonizing the act of tweeting) belonging to different "generations of control" (Deibert & Rohozinski, 2010), restricting access to content and social media platforms through a variety of technical means (e.g., blocking internet protocols [IPs], removing ...
This study documents the practice of Internet censorship around the world through empirical testing in 45 countries of the availability of 2,046 of the world's most-trafficked and influential websites, plus additional country-specific websites. ... Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series. Subscribe to this free journal for more ...
Further research is needed to test how well recent trends respond to our theoretical predictions. ... This paper asks whether the censorship strategies employed by censors vary across individual targets. ... Pan, J. (2017). How market dynamics of domestic and foreign social media firms shape strategies of Internet censorship. Problems of Post ...
The Internet censorship bibliography in Internet Censorship is a comprehensive collection of academic papers and technical reports on various aspects of online censorship, such as detection, circumvention, and analysis. The bibliography is maintained by Philipp Winter, a computer scientist and researcher who works on privacy and security issues. The bibliography covers topics such as probe ...
In this paper I focus on the rise of Internet censorship and circumvention. The main objectives are to trace the history of Internet censorship over the last twenty years. I survey technologies and strategies employed by various governments, especially repressive governments, for Internet censorship.
In the collection, we present five peer reviewed papers on the topic of Internet censorship and control. The topics of the papers include a broad look at information controls, censorship of microblogs in China, new modes of online censorship, the balance of power in Internet governance, and control in the certificate authority model.
This paper investigates the need for internet control. surveillance, self-censorship, website blocking, and DNS blocking. The. access, loss of trust, and threats to human rights. The paper ...
Internet domain, digital censorship followed with tools such as filtering, blocking, hacking, and ... this paper is one of the first research contributions to analyse the relationships between ...
trends in Internet censorship globally. The narrow scope of a case study only shows the experience of one country or region, for a limited time period. Few works provide global insights over multi-year measurement periods. This paper fills this gap by providing a worldwide represen-tative view of Internet censorship methods. By drawing from
An Internet-wide, Longitudinal Censorship Observatory. ... Read our USENIX 2023 paper on network changes after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. January 19, 2023. Join Censored Planet as a 2023 ICFP Fellow. ... Our research publications are often technical and complex, here we aim to communicate our research to a broader audience. ...
citizens' reach. Scholars have long suggested that censorship is key to the popular support and stability of these regimes (Ford, 1935). Nonetheless, direct empirical evidence about the effect of removing censorship is limited. In this paper, we ask two questions. Does providing access to an uncensored Internet lead citizens to
Abstract. Countries have employed the Internet proxy as a censorship mechanism for various reasons. Concurrently, cyber criminal activities continue to rise. This research explores peoples' engagement in bypassing the Internet proxy and if it is related to cyber criminal engagement. Through an experimental design, participants were randomly ...
Although some case studies have examined abuse of power by moderators , including anecdotal evidence of politically motivated censorship (Wright, 2006), the current research is the first systematic investigation of censoring among people who moderate online communities. This investigation is consequential because selective censoring that favors ...
Like so many other technologies, the internet poses a double-edged sword in the context of human rights. Footnote 1 While civilians can mobilise the internet to assemble and voice dissent, it can also be weaponised to consolidate power and suppress any form of opposition. Internet shutdowns, meaning intentional disruptions of internet services, Footnote 2 represent one method that limits ...
This paper presents arguments against censorship of the Internet. The Internet has become one of the most valuable technological tools in our society. For the first time in history, people can freely express their opinions. In fact, it has been suggested "that on-line systems give people far more genuinely free speech and free press than [has] ever [occurred] in human history" (Com-Revere 71).
The views expressed in the paper are neither pro-freedom of expression nor anti-censorship. As a result, it also explains why internet censorship is essential in today's world. Some legal rulings and everyday occurrences are also explored to understand the conflict between individual rights and Internet censorship.
The research results and the analysis of the literature on the subject, as presented in this paper, confirm the main hypothesis of the paper, which was: "The concept of free flow of information has little chances of success at this stage of development of means of communication, due to the existing risk of limiting free access to Internet".
Internet publishers, especially news portals and social media platforms, have faced heightened pressure to censor as the country has made an authoritarian and nationalistic turn under Mr. Xi's ...
Call For Papers [Main Conference] Submission link and the pdf of Call-for-Papers will be posted soon. ... IEEE INFOCOM 2025 solicits research papers describing significant and innovative research contributions to the field of computer and data communication networks. We invite submissions on a wide range of research topics, spanning both ...
Internet Censorship is good for eradicating social evils over the internet like pornography, fake news, bullying etc. There are some Information Technology Laws in India used for the punishment of such crime but if these provisions are used in the name of regulations to promote agenda of a political party which is not in the interest of public ...
In the 1950s and '60s, filmmakers evaded censorship by making "lab coat films." In these movies, Keilty says, "Some doctor in a white lab coat comes out at the start of it and tells you ...