1932

Abstract

To what extent are Internet users resilient to online censorship? When does censorship influence consumption of information and when does it create backlash? Drawing on a growing literature on Internet users’ reactions to censorship, I posit that awareness of censorship, incentives to seek out information, and resources to circumvent censorship are essential to resilience to censorship. I describe how authoritarian regimes have adapted their strategies of censorship to reduce both awareness of censorship and demand for uncensored information.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032837
2020-05-11
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/23/1/annurev-polisci-050718-032837.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032837&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adamic LA, Glance N. 2005. The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: divided they blog. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Link Discovery36–43 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adena M, Enikolopov R, Petrova M, Santarosa V, Zhuravskaya E 2015. Radio and the rise of the Nazis in prewar Germany. Q. J. Econ. 130:1885–939
    [Google Scholar]
  3. al Masri R. 2017. In Jordan, the “invisible hand” blocks internet archive Rep., Citiz. Lab, Toronto https://citizenlab.ca/2017/04/jordan-invisible-hand-blocks-internet-archive/
  4. Allcott H, Gentzkow M. 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J. Econ. Perspect. 31:211–36
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ball-Rokeach SJ, DeFleur ML. 1976. A dependency model of mass-media effects. Commun. Res. 3:3–21
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bamman D, O'Connor B, Smith N 2012. Censorship and deletion practices in Chinese social media. First Monday 17: https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v17i3.3943
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Barberá P, Jost JT, Nagler J, Tucker JA, Bonneau R 2015. Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?. Psychol. Sci. 26:1531–42
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Baum MA. 2002. Sex, lies, and war: how soft news brings foreign policy to the inattentive public. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 96:91–109
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bennett WL, Segerberg A. 2012. The logic of connective action: digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Inf. Commun. Soc. 15:739–68
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bleck J, Michelitch K. 2017. Capturing the airwaves, capturing the nation? A field experiment on state-run media effects in the wake of a coup. J. Politics 79:873–89
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bond RM, Fariss CJ, Jones JJ, Kramer AD, Marlow C et al. 2012. A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489:295–98
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Boxell L, Steinert-Threlkeld Z. 2019. Taxing dissent: the impact of a social media tax in Uganda. arXiv:1909.04107 [econ.GN]
  13. Brady AM. 2008. Marketing Dictatorship: Propaganda and Thought Work in Contemporary China Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
  14. Bullock JG. 2009. Partisan bias and the Bayesian ideal in the study of public opinion. J. Politics 71:1109–24
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cantoni D, Chen Y, Yang DY, Yuchtman N, Zhang YJ 2017. Curriculum and ideology. J. Political Econ. 125:338–92
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Chen J, Xu Y. 2017. Information manipulation and reform in authoritarian regimes. Political Sci. Res. Methods 5:163–78
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Chen Y, Yang DY. 2019. The impact of media censorship: 1984 or Brave New World. ? Am. Econ. Rev. 109:2294–332
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Converse PE. 1962. Information flow and the stability of partisan attitudes. Public Opin. Q. 26:578–99
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Converse PE. 1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. Ideology and Discontent D Apter pp. 206–61. New York: Free Press of Glencoe
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Davenport C. 2007. State repression and political order. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 10:1–23
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Deibert R, Palfrey J, Rohozinski R, Zittrain J 2011. Access Contested: Security, Identity, and Resistance in Asian Cyberspace Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  22. Deibert R, Palfrey J, Rohozinski R, Zittrain J, Haraszti M 2010. Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  23. Deibert R, Palfrey J, Rohozinski R, Zittrain J, Stein JG 2008. Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  24. DellaVigna S, Enikolopov R, Mironova V, Petrova M, Zhuravskaya E 2014. Cross-border media and nationalism: evidence from Serbian radio in Croatia. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 6:103–32
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Diamond L. 2010. Liberation technology. J. Democracy 21:69–83
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Downs A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy New York: Harper
  27. Earl J. 2010. The dynamics of protest-related diffusion on the web. Inf. Commun. Soc. 13:209–25
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Edmond C. 2013. Information manipulation, coordination, and regime change. Rev. Econ. Stud. 80:1422–58
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Egorov G, Guriev S, Sonin K 2009. Why resource-poor dictators allow freer media: a theory and evidence from panel data. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 103:645–68
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Elmer-Dewitt P. 1993. First nation in cyberspace. TimeDec. 6
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Enikolopov R, Petrova M, Zhuravskaya E 2011. Media and political persuasion: evidence from Russia. Am. Econ. Rev. 101:3253–85
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Epstein R, Robertson RE. 2015. The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections. PNAS 112:E4512–E4521
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Epstein R, Robertson RE, Lazer D, Wilson C 2017. Suppressing the search engine manipulation effect (SEME). Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Int. 1:242
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Flynn D, Nyhan B, Reifler J 2017. The nature and origins of misperceptions: understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychol 38:127–50
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Francisco RA. 2005. The dictator's dilemma. Repression and Mobilization C Davenport, H Johnson, C Mueller 58–81 Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Fu K, Chan C, Chau M 2013. Assessing censorship on microblogs in China: discriminatory keyword analysis and the real-name registration policy. IEEE Internet Comput 17:42–50
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Geddes B, Zaller J. 1989. Sources of popular support for authoritarian regimes. Am. J. Political Sci. 33:319–47
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Gehlbach S, Sonin K. 2014. Government control of the media. J. Public Econ. 118:163–71
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Gehlbach S, Sonin K, Svolik MW 2016. Formal models of nondemocratic politics. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 19:565–84
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Gentzkow M, Shapiro JM. 2006. Media bias and reputation. J. Political Econ. 114:280–316
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Gerber A, Green D. 1999. Misperceptions about perceptual bias. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2:189–210
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Gohdes AR. 2020. Repression technology: Internet accessibility and state violence. Am. J. Political Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12509
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  43. Goldstone JA, Tilly C. 2001. Threat and opportunity, popular action and state response in the dynamics of contentious action. Silence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics R Aminzade, J Goldstone, D McAdam 175–94 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Gramlich J. 2019. 10 facts about Americans and Facebook. News Release, May 16, Fact Tank, Pew Res. Center Washington, DC: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/16/facts-about-americans-and-facebook/
  45. Guriev S, Treisman D. 2019. Informational autocrats. J. Econ. Perspect. 33:4100–27
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Hassanpour N. 2014. Media disruption and revolutionary unrest: evidence from Mubarak's quasi-experiment. Political Commun 31:1–24
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Hassanpour N. 2016. Leading from the Periphery and Network Collective Action Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  48. Hill SJ. 2017. Learning together slowly: Bayesian learning about political facts. J. Politics 79:1403–18
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Hobbs WR, Roberts ME. 2018. How sudden censorship can increase access to information. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 112:621–36
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Huang H. 2015. Propaganda as signaling. Comp. Politics 47:419–44
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Huang H. 2017. A war of (mis)information: the political effects of rumors and rumor rebuttals in an authoritarian country. Br. J. Political Sci. 47:283–311
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Huang H. 2018. The pathology of hard propaganda. J. Politics 80:1034–38
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Iyengar S. 1990. The accessibility bias in politics: television news and public opinion. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 2:1–15
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Iyengar S, Kinder DR. 2010. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  55. Jack C. 2017. Lexicon of lies: terms for problematic information Rep., Data and Society Research Institute New York, NY: https://datasociety.net/pubs/oh/DataAndSociety_LexiconofLies.pdf
  56. Jansen S, Martin B. 2015. The Streisand effect and censorship backfire. Int. J. Commun. 9:656–71
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Jones JJ, Bond RM, Bakshy E, Eckles D, Fowler JH 2017. Social influence and political mobilization: further evidence from a randomized experiment in the 2012 US presidential election. PLOS ONE 12:e0173851
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Kern HL, Hainmueller J. 2009. Opium for the masses: how foreign media can stabilize authoritarian regimes. Political Anal 17:377–99
    [Google Scholar]
  59. King G, Pan J, Roberts ME 2013. How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 107:1–18
    [Google Scholar]
  60. King G, Pan J, Roberts ME 2014. Reverse-engineering censorship in China: randomized experimentation and participant observation. Science 345:1251722
    [Google Scholar]
  61. King G, Pan J, Roberts ME 2017a. How the Chinese government fabricates social media posts for strategic distraction, not engaged argument. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 111:484–501
    [Google Scholar]
  62. King G, Schneer B, White A 2017b. How the news media activate public expression and influence national agendas. Science 358:776–80
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Knockel J, Ruan L, Crete-Nishihata M 2017. We (can't) chat: “709 crackdown” discussions blocked on Weibo and WeChat Rep., Citiz. Lab, Toronto. https://citizenlab.ca/2017/04/we-cant-chat-709-crackdown-discussions-blocked-on-weibo-and-wechat/
  64. Kunda Z. 1987. Motivated inference: self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 53:636–47
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Kuran T. 1989. Sparks and prairie fires: a theory of unanticipated political revolution. Public Choice 61:41–74
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Kuran T. 1991. Now out of never: the element of surprise in the East European revolution of 1989. World Politics 44:7–48
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Lapowsky I. 2018. House Democrats release 3,500 Russia-linked Facebook ads. Wired May 10. https://www.wired.com/story/house-democrats-release-3500-russia-linked-facebook-ads
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Larreguy H, Marshall J. 2019. The incentives and effects of independent and government-controlled media in the developing world. The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion E Suhay, B Grofman, A Trechse Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.13
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  69. Lichbach MI. 1987. Deterrence or escalation? The puzzle of aggregate studies of repression and dissent. J. Confl. Resolut. 31:266–97
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Little AT. 2016. Communication technology and protest. J. Politics 78:152–66
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Little AT. 2017. Propaganda and credulity. Games Econ. Behav. 102:224–32
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Lohmann S. 1994. The dynamics of informational cascades: the Monday demonstrations in Leipzig, East Germany, 1989–1991. World Politics 47:42–101
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Lorentzen P. 2014. China's strategic censorship. Am. J. Political Sci. 58:402–14
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Loveless M. 2008. Media dependency: mass media as sources of information in the democratizing countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Democratization 15:162–83
    [Google Scholar]
  75. MacKinnon R. 2012. Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom New York: Basic Books
  76. Marshall J. 2019. Signaling sophistication: how social expectations can increase political information acquisition. J. Politics 81:167–86
    [Google Scholar]
  77. McCombs ME, Shaw DL. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opin. Q. 36:176–87
    [Google Scholar]
  78. McMillan J, Zoido P. 2004. How to subvert democracy: Montesinos in Peru. J. Econ. Perspect. 18:69–92
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Miller B. 2018. The limits of commercialized censorship in China Work. Pap., London School of Economics London: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/101417/1/miller_limits_of_commercialized_censorship_in_china.pdf
  80. Miller DT. 2019. Topics and emotions in Russian Twitter propaganda. First Monday 24: https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/9638
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Mirani L. 2015. Millions of Facebook users have no idea they're using the internet. Quartz Feb. 9. https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Moore WH. 1998. Repression and dissent: substitution, context, and timing. Am. J. Political Sci. 42:851–73
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Morozov E. 2011. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom New York: PublicAffairs
  84. Munger K, Bonneau R, Nagler J, Tucker JA 2019. Elites tweet to get feet off the streets: measuring regime social media strategies during protest. Political Sci. Res. Methods 7:4815–34
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Nabi Z. 2014. censorship is futile. First Monday 19: https://firstmonday.org/article/view/5525/4155
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Norris P. 2001. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  87. Pan J. 2016. How market dynamics of domestic and foreign social media firms shape strategies of internet censorship. Problems Post-Communism 64:167–88
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Pan J, Roberts ME. 2020. Censorship's effect on incidental exposure to information: evidence from Wikipedia. SAGE Open 10: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019894068
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  89. Pan J, Siegel A. 2020. How Saudi crackdowns fail to silence online dissent. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 114:1109–25
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Peisakhin L, Rozenas A. 2018. Electoral effects of biased media: Russian television in Ukraine. Am. J. Political Sci. 62:535–50
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Petrova M. 2011. Newspapers and parties: how advertising revenues created an independent press. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 105:790–808
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Popkin S. 1994. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  93. Qin B, Strömberg D, Wu Y 2017. Why does China allow freer social media? Protests versus surveillance and propaganda. J. Econ. Perspect. 31:117–40
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Repnikova M, Fang K. 2019. Digital media experiments in China: “revolutionizing” persuasion under Xi Jinping. China Q 239:679–701
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Roberts ME. 2018. Censored: Distraction and Diversion Inside China's Great Firewall Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  96. Roberts ME, Stewart BM, Nielsen RA 2020. Adjusting for confounding with text matching. Am. J. Political Sci. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Sanovich S, Stukal D, Tucker JA 2018. Turning the virtual tables: government strategies for addressing online opposition with an application to Russia. Comp. Politics 50:435–82
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Shadmehr M, Bernhardt D. 2011. Collective action with uncertain payoffs: coordination, public signals, and punishment dilemmas. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 105:829–51
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Shadmehr M, Bernhardt D. 2015. State censorship. Am. Econ. J. Microecon. 7:280–307
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Shahbaz A. 2018. Freedom on the net 2018: the rise of digital authoritarianism Rep., Freedom House Washington, DC: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2018/rise-digital-authoritarianism
  101. Steinert-Threlkeld ZC. 2017. Spontaneous collective action: peripheral mobilization during the Arab spring. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 111:379–403
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Stern RE, Hassid J. 2012. Amplifying silence: uncertainty and control parables in contemporary China. Comp. Political Stud. 45:1230–54
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Stockmann D. 2012. Media Commercialization and Authoritarian Rule in China Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  104. Stukal D, Sanovich S, Bonneau R, Tucker JA 2017. Detecting bots on Russian political Twitter. Big Data 5:310–24
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Taber CS, Lodge M. 2006. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am. J. Political Sci. 50:755–69
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Tanash R, Chen Z, Wallach D, Marschall M 2017. The decline of social media censorship and the rise of self-censorship after the 2016 failed Turkish coup Paper presented at FOCI ’17, 7th USENIX Workshop on Free and Open Communications on the Internet Vancouver, BC: Aug. 14. https://www.usenix.org/conference/foci17/workshop-program/presentation/tanash
  107. Tucker JA, Guess A, Barberá P, Vaccari C, Siegel A et al. 2018. Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature Rep., William and Flora Hewlett Found Menlo Park, CA: https://hewlett.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Social-Media-Political-Polarization-and-Political-Disinformation-Literature-Review.pdf
  108. Tufekci Z. 2014. Engineering the public: big data, surveillance and computational politics. First Monday 19: https://firstmonday.org/article/view/4901/4097
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Verkamp JP, Gupta M. 2013. Five incidents, one theme: Twitter spam as a weapon to drown voices of protest Paper presented at FOCI ’13, 3rd USENIX Workshop on Free and Open Communications on the Internet Washington, DC: Aug. 13. https://www.usenix.org/conference/foci13/workshop-program/presentation/verkamp
  110. Wedeen L. 1999. Ambiguities of Domination: Politics, Rhetoric, and Symbols in Contemporary Syria Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  111. Weidmann NB, Benitez-Baleato S, Hunziker P, Glatz E, Dimitropoulos X 2016. Digital discrimination: political bias in internet service provision across ethnic groups. Science 353:1151–55
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Weidmann NB, Rød EG. 2019. The Internet and Political Protest in Autocracies Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  113. Yanagizawa-Drott D. 2014. Propaganda and conflict: evidence from the Rwandan genocide. Q. J. Econ. 129:1947–94
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Young LE. 2019. The psychology of state repression: fear and dissent decisions in Zimbabwe. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 113:140–55
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Zaller JR. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  116. Zuckerman E. 2015. Cute cats to the rescue? Participatory media and political expression. From Voice to Influence: Understanding Citizenship in a Digital Age D Allen, JS Light 131–54 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032837
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error