I did a lot of thinking about my group's case study on Iran and its (failed) "Twitter Revolution" this week, as it was extremely relevant to both the readings and class discussion. But it was Elizabeth Hanson's discussion of the "dictator's dilemma" that has me contemplating Internet usage in authoritarian states, and state vs. citizen power.
China has a massive censorship system, blocking access to websites with dissenting views or anything that could reveal negative opinions of the government - particularly many western-based news and social networking sites. At the same time, China is one of the world's largest Internet users as a country, and yet it falls under such severe restrictions. Granted, much of the censorshiop is done via self-policing, and Internet users wishing to access blocked sites have found ways to get around the system, such as proxy sites.
The dictator's dilemma is about how much governments should control the Internet in authoritarian states, regarding citizen access, but at the same time the Internet can be a valuable tool for governments to disseminate their messages/propaganda. If Internet is restricted completely, then the government lacks that easy propaganda outlet. The dilemma is...have restricted Internet access, with the goal of keeping away opposition views but also be able to spread government-sanctioned information...or no Internet at all?
People will always find a way to get the information they want, censorship be damned. The question is whether or not the government should make it easier or more difficult, and whether authoritarian governments should use the Internet to their own advantage...and to what degree?
No comments:
Post a Comment