Ethics of Internet Shutdowns and Censorship by Governments
Stay updated with us
Sign up for our newsletter
Most of us cannot imagine a single day without the internet. Whether it is getting the news, speaking to our friends, paying our bills, streaming our shows, or sometimes, even making a living. We wake up, check our phones, maybe scroll a bit, and go about our day. All of a sudden, one morning you go to check everything and there’s no internet! No messages coming through, no news updates, and no way to work or find out what’s going on! That’s the experience of people living under government internet shutdowns / censorship, which presents a bigger question, is it ever okay for a government to turn off the internet or shut down parts of the internet?
Also Read: How Ethical Is Your Cloud Provider? Concerns & Cost!
Let’s talk about it.
What Are Internet Shutdowns and Censorship?
A government internet shutdown is when the government intentionally cuts off the internet, sometimes it is a complete blackout, but sometimes it is only certain services, like messaging apps or social media, that go down.
Then there is online censorship by governments. Again, this does not always mean turning off the internet, it can mean blocking certain websites, removing content, monitoring people’s conversations, or punishing people for what they do or say. It can also mean slowing down the speed so much that the internet can hardly be used at all.
In 2023, there were 283 documented internet shutdowns in 39 countries (Access Now report). Authorities typically claim they are doing this for reasons of national security or public safety.
Why Do Governments Do This?
The internet gives people a voice. It enables people to speak out, organize, and protest. That can be uncomfortable, perhaps threatening, for those in power. So in protest events or as political violence or unrest, internet access is often the first to go.
Governments might pat themselves on the back for stopping violence or misinformation in these instances. In some limited cases, it is probably true. But in many cases the issue is not about violence or safety: it is about control. The internet also enables more transparency, and when its use is blocked, transparency is blocked.
Can It Ever Be Justified?
In an escalating situation where misinformation is spreading rapidly and causing panic or violence. Maybe for short-term situation of emergency or panic, limiting access to just some particularly harmful information is useful. But always, and the least, in ways that are transparent, measured and limited. Ethiopia’s 2 year Tigray region internet shutdown costed over $140 million
The problem with government internet shutdowns is that they’re seldom that precise. Instead, shutdowns impact millions of people who are merely trying to live their lives. They prevent a student from taking their online classes. Such things go against internet censorship ethics. They cut off access to emergency services. They disrupt medical appointments, banking, and grocery deliveries.
Who is Affected Most?
The short answer is everyone. But some people are impacted far more than others.
Students and workers where there is learning and earning related to the internet lose out. Oftentimes, classes and jobs are completely reliant on the internet. During Kashmir’s 18-month internet blackout, 1.2 million students were affected due to government internet shutdowns. UNESCO flagged repeated shutdowns in Myanmar for disrupting access to digital learning tools.
Businesses are impacted economically. They can’t reach their customers and take payments, and sometimes all they can do is send a simple update. Internet shutdowns cost the global economy $24.3 billion in 2022 (Top10VPN report).
Journalists, activists, and whistle-blowers get affected directly. They frequently lose the ability to work, protect themselves, and keep others safe without access to the internet. For many people, the internet is the only way to check if their loved ones are safe and okay. And entire economies are still impacted. A nationwide shutdown of one day can cost millions, sometimes billions. And still, it is not just simply a number on a screen.
Also Read: Should We Regulate Virtual Identities in the Metaverse
What About Free Speech?
At the heart of the issue is a very large question. Do people have the right to express themselves freely and access information freely, online? Uganda shut down internet access before the 2021 election to block opposition, while Iran blacked out mobile data during protests in 2009 and 2022 after disputed elections.
Most countries profess a commitment to free speech. And numerous countries have signed international agreements that suggest recognizing access to the internet as part of that fundamental right. However, when those same countries start blocking sites and cut connection to individuals, that seem to weaken very quickly.
This is where the internet censorship ethics become critical. A government’s actions to restrict or censor online access should meet a few basic criteria. It must not only be legal but be truly necessary, be as limited as possible, and acceptable to be scrutinized, not hidden behind closed doors.
If restrictions on free speech, and access to information, don’t comply with some basic ethical standards, it stops becoming an issue of safety, and starts becoming an issue of power.
Are There Better Ways To Respond To Online Threats?
Yes, absolutely. Governments do not need to close the plug every time an online issue arises. There are more targeted and sensible (often preventative) responses to those online issues.
Some governments can do some decent human thinking by working with the digital platforms to take down illegal and hateful content. Others boost digital literacy so people can spot fake news and misinformation. They can use laws to hold people accountable who actually break them versus harming everyone through punishing everyone.
What Role Do Tech Companies Have?
Big tech companies have choices to make too. When a government asks them to block content or provide user data, they can choose whether to push back or comply.
Some companies advocate for users. Others comply quietly to protect their business. They don’t see themselves as neutral actors in all of this. They influence what people are able to say and see. Twitter and Meta have received government requests to remove content or hand over data, Meta got over 400,000 requests in 2023. Apple removed apps like VPNs in China due to government pressure.
Users have power too. If we educate ourselves, use our voice, and support those acting on behalf of digital rights, we help protect the internet we want to exist.
So Where Do We Go from Here?
The internet is no longer a tool. It’s part of our daily existence. Disabling, restricting or censoring the internet is the same as turning off electricity or water. It derives a person’s ability to connect, learn, earn, and sometimes live.
Government internet shutdowns, and the online censorship by governments should never be normalized in society. Such actions must be rare, necessary, and subject to public scrutiny and legal challenges.
When governments listen less than they silence, their citizens lose. When we treat internet access as a fundamental right, we strengthen our social fabric, we enable freedom, and we promote honesty.
Final Thoughts
Freedom of expression does not mean that we will always agree. It means that everyone has a chance to be heard. Shutting down the internet does not solve problems; it obfuscates them for a period of time. Without silence we can build a secure society based on trust, truth, and speaking, sharing, and connecting. The extent to which we treat internet access like a basic right is the extent to which we strengthen our communities.
The more we learn about the actual cost of censorship, the more we can say it plainly: a more secure world is not a world with less speech. A more secure world is a world with more truth, more voices, and more connections.
