The recent protests in Bangladesh have led to another example of a national government shutting down the internet and telecommunications. The Bangladeshi government claimed that the shutdown was implemented to stop misinformation. In 2023 the internet was shut down in Libya after a natural disaster to prevent criticism of the local authorities and their response to the emergency. At this time, thirty-nine nations across the world at some time have shut down the internet for one reason or the other. What was once a speculative concept has now become a practice that will soon be accepted.
The United Nations has made access to the internet a right; intentionally denying individuals access to the internet is considered a human rights violation. Though when it comes to human rights, national governments have a tendency to use international bodies such as the UN as a reason for action while dismissing such “rules” for themselves. Such rules are bent, ignored, and broken whenever national governments see fit. According to Access Now, in 2023 alone there were 283 known internet shut downs used by governments against their citizens, India being the most prolific. The world’s biggest democratic government sees fit to exercise control of information and the communications over those it rules.
Large corporations have a tendency to work with national governments so that they may operate in those nations. Russia and China have provisions to isolate their internet access from the rest of the world, along with “kill switches.” The Australian government has passed laws allowing its federal government to “shut down the net” should its leadership see fit. The potential exists for most nations to do this. All that is needed is a crisis. The provision for a “threat to national interest” allows for governments to cut individuals off from the world and one another.
In Syria the internet was even shut down during high school exams in an attempt to stop students from cheating. Given the extreme rigidity of study and examination for schooling in nations like South Korea, such a reason could also be used there as well. Cultural and state directed interests are going to be key reasons as to why information and communications are controlled and denied. It will vary according to the self-interest of particular regimes and national flavors.
The U.S. government attempted to pass the right to use an internet “kill switch” but scrutiny prevented it from being allowed. With populist leaders and panic mongering of the forever changing crises on the horizon, it is likely that such an option will someday be on the table. It is of no surprise that the United Kingdom has in its power to impose such a shut down. The public is assured that failsafes exist to prevent it from being abused (though given the British government’s fear of memes, it may not really take much).
In a crisis, information and communications are crucial. Advocates for state power and a strong central authority agree, which is why they don’t want them spread. The belief that angels rule the nation and wise magicians control the economy is pervasive and resonates the world over. Information and communications are a sacred act of defiance against evil and authoritarianism in its many variants.
Controlling the internet and denying individuals or entire nations access to it is a perverse form of censorship. It is a prohibition on information and communications. It is a control of conversation. It is an insecure stab at all forms of dissent, even opinions that may favor the status quo. The Chinese government, for example, has in the past shut down the internet for over three hundred days in Xinjiang from July 2009 to May 2010. This was done in response to riots in that region.
It is almost expected that dictatorships or nations defined as tyrannical would utilize such measures to keep their citizens in the dark. The prohibition of speech and control of information is the hallmark of such governments. It was once a pillar of a dystopian society. Now, those who claim to adore freedom and exemplify human rights and individual liberty conceive conditions and circumstances where an entire population should be collectivized and controlled in such a manner. A government so righteous and omnipotent in its reasons can simply shut the internet down and turn our phones into bricks. The price of living in a free society, I am sure.
Outside the rights violation and arrogance of the government, there is a cost to the economy. A single day of internet shut down could cost the U.S. economy over $7 billion. For a nation like Bangladesh that has over a million online contractors, the multi-day shut down and inability to work and communicate has ruined companies and individual’s livelihoods and caused families to starve. It also destroys foreign confidence in employing anyone from that nation. These are considerations those who work for the government don’t seem to care about. A shut down also knocks out crucial services that the government has a monopoly on, including medical and first responders. It is another example of the danger of being dependent on a monopoly like the state.
The 2011 Arab Spring led to the government of Egypt using its own kill switch to shut down the internet, making all traffic and mobile communications impossible from Egyptian domains. The Indian government has frequently shut down access to the internet in “troubled” regions. Iran used a kill switch during the 2019-2020 protests to stop the spread of anti-regime sentiment. The prohibition of social media platforms and prosecuting online posts or memes is another layer of the war against the internet. But above all a war on an individual’s right to express themselves and witness information, however dank and ill informed such media may be. It is a right for individuals to make those distinctions for themselves. Without the ability to compare different view points, it only leads to a “dumbed” down intellect and perspective of the world that tends to favor dependency on the State. More hardcore elements will be sent underground, thus confirming their paranoia and often validating their most outlandish of conspiracy theories.
In the age of helicopter parenting, those who infest government have a feeling of parental custodianship over the masses they rule. Marry that with old fashioned power and you have a combination of benevolence and vileness. No great evil is ever done as well than that performed under the belief of good intentions. Censorship and prohibition is often done with the intent of stopping terrorism. It turns out that all roads lead to the Borg collective; rather than celebrating diverse thoughts, we live in a world that seeks a hive mind. A decentralized internet and the many forms of social media and communication between individuals is a threat to the hive.
The Internet Society has reported that so far in 2024, “four national governments have shutdown access to the internet during or following elections.” This may in fact become the “new normal” as we have come to hear from elites and those who live inside the government apparatus. If their own version of the truth is not enough, then governments may simply deny individuals access to all other forms of truth, ranging from art and entertainment to language itself.
Alternative forms of internet such as satellite and wireless communication may be a solution. As Coldfusion explained in his video, “Governments Are Suddenly Shutting Down The Internet,” the use of decentralized mesh networks have been used by people in Singapore and Iran to get past government shutdowns. As engineers working for the state and corporations do their best to raise digital bars that imprison individuals and their sectors of the planet, many others will find a way to bypass such constraints. If governments continue to shut down the internet they will make its current incarnation obsolete, giving rise to an alternative that they cannot control.
The internet is a human right, at least in the sense that individuals should have the right to access it if they so wish. It is not an entitlement. But no corporation or government should assume it has dominion over what individuals say, hear, or view. The internet for better and worse has allowed varying conversations and expressions of ideas to take place. Even if the internet does become a codified human right, that will not mean governments will respect it. They will invent reasons to allow themselves to violate such a right, whether it happens to be an emergency or crisis. There is nothing quite like the tantrum of the most powerful to simply pull the cord out for all online information because they have an inability to express themselves. It is the instinct of a toddler. That is who rules you.
