Talk:Internet censorship/Archive 1

Acronyms
The acronyms ONI and RSF are used repeatedly but not defined in the article, nor are external links provided. FixMacs (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thailand
Thailand should be seriously moved to 'Pervasive'. Since Sept 19, the military coup, more and more goverment critical websites have been banned. http://www.2bangkok.com/blocked.shtml

Hey this section is missing something. There is no mention of indirect internet censorship. What is indirect censorship?

Forum: User can't discuss anything illegal(can't give explicit instructions on how to build a bomb for example), since it's against the forum rules. If he does, a moderator will reprimend him. Why is this against the rules? The company that hosts the forum will take the forum down if anything illegal is discussed. Why will they take the forum down? Because the government will punish the host for the illegal content of that forum!

ISP: Have to follow the ISP's terms of service. Which will always indicate that the service can't used for illegal purposes. The ISP has no moral substance, they just don't want to get in trouble with the government!


 * Huh? I don't follow.  What exactly is it that you feel the article is missing?  --Ardonik.talk 19:29, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that what people are free to discuss on the internet is interfered with by the government indirectly. Basically, people can't discuss anything illegal(certain parts of illegal stuff anyways) on the internet. The government doesn't need to individually track down people and charge them for discussing illegal stuff. Website hosts, and administrators of chatrooms or message boards do this for the government(not charge individuals, just prevent them from discussing such topics). Not always because they agree with the law mind you, but they are simply protecting themselves from being sure

Article name
Cyberspace? That word is so 1990s. Would anyone object to moving Censorship in cyberspace to Internet censorship? Wmahan. 02:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. JonHarder 11:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Haakon 12:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Skinnyweed 18:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. &#8211; drw25 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any dissenters, so I went ahead and moved it. Yell at me if I acted too soon :-) Haakon 19:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've fixed up all the linking articles to use the new name. Wmahan. 02:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Dissent! Motion to change the article to Information Superhighway Roadblocks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.177.156 (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if the Indian govt have ordered all of blogspot to be blocked. News reports suggest otherwise.

The Indian governement has not ordered all of blogspot etc to banned. Details of the ongoing ban are available at http://censorship.wikia.com/wiki/Bloggers_Against_Censorship. Have included detail that point to this though and created a new page for "Internet Censorship in India". Shrichriswiki 10:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Internet censorship in Saudi Arabia
The Internet is also censored on a country-wide basis in Saudi Arabia, by means of proxy servers and content evaluation software. I would write about it, but currently I'm in Saudi myself and cannot properly research the subject, as most of the sites containing relevant information are blocked as well :) -- 198.36.32.21 13:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Eventually I did find some useful info and put it into the article - expansion is of course welcome. -- 198.36.32.21 14:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Order of nations
I'd like to eventually reorganize the order of the nations list by the pervasiveness of their censorship according to the Open Net Initiative and Reporter's without Border's censorship map. Unless someone opposes this, I'm going to go ahead and do it at some point.--Daveswagon 16:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Though I can understand the logic behind sorting nations by the pervasiveness of their censorship, I feel that this is ultimately disorienting to the end-viewer. It can just as easily be said that select few countries have much higher censorship standards than others, but because the weight of different nations individual censorship practices is so vastly subjective, I think erring on the side of caution and sorting alphabetically would present a much cleaner standard.  As example, some people would view political censorship as being much more severe than pornographic censorship.  Some would feel exactly the opposite.  Certain countries such as China and North Korea certainly earn their respective prominence when speaking of Internet Censorship, but because the majority of nations covered have more subtle censorship campaigns we should focus on sorting the nations in a more traditionally organized way. Ninestories (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Statistical Graphs
I think it would be great if we could find statistical surveys that we could organize into graphs. The Internet in China article has marking of internet penetration by year, but I think it would be great if we could do it by country. Ideas?--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Censorship of MySpace in Denmark.
I don't live there, nor do I visit MySpace, but I found that bit of information odd. A search for "myspace denmark" and related terms didn't bring up any relevant results. I also checked MySpace, and there are plenty of users from Denmark. Please don't re-add Denmark to the list of sites blocking MySpace unless you can confirm it. AnonymousOrc 12:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) І

Schools
Did I miss the point where allowing schools to make pornography, etc. unavailable for students became censorship in the same way as rounding up dissidents or fining users for looking at opposition parties? That sounds like hysteria - the kind that diminishes the cause for everyone else.

reply: It remains censorship. You can argue that this is justifiable censorship or even benevolent censorship, but it is still censorship. I politely disagree with your ideas and feelings on the subject. I also disagree with your need for "causes" and your creation of us/them dynamics, etc. It's reactionary nonsense. <3. 67.169.177.156 (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Small-scale censorship - should examples be listed here?
The Internet is rife with examples of small-scale censorship that isn't covered by the broad categories already listed. In 2005, the Canadian ISP Telus [blocked access to a union web site] over content related to a Telus/union labor dispute. There are other examples of ISPs and hosting providers blocking access to web sites by their customers, or blocking access web sites they host or provide direct connectivity to. I expect the count to run into the dozens if not hundreds going back to the early 1990s. Are such examples appropriate for this Wikipedia story? Is a complete list appropriate? Dfpc 01:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Total censorship of the Internet
This article states matter-of-factly that total censorship of the Internet is close to impossible because of the nature of the Internet. This statement is POV. In many parts of the developed world where the Internet is already ubiquitious, this statement is true. However, the most effective way to restrict Internet access is to prevent people from owning computers or connecting them together in the first place. North Korea is an example of successful total Internet censorship. Internet restrictions also cannot be bypassed by most people in Cuba, because the Cuban government effectively limits the spread of the Internet itself by limiting who can own computers and by preventing people who do own them from even using modems. To most people in Cuba and North Korea and elsewhere, the internet is totally restricted. The Internet-based circumvention technologies listed on this page will not help those people because they don't have access even to a filtered Internet connection. (Sobesurfski 15:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC))
 * I softened this language. Davidwr 01:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal Censorship
I created a Portal Censorship section. It needs revision to better reflect what Wikipedians think about portal censorship and whether it belongs in this article or in another. It also needs non-Google examples and official statements from other major portals that deliberately exclude sites that logically belong in their listings. Portals include: search engines, web directories, special-topic indexes, etc.

For this section, a portal
 * is an "entry point" to find other pages on the web, and
 * claims to carry a near-exhaustive list of web sites that meet a certain criteria, and
 * deliberately excludes one or more web sites that are in criteria #2 when the web site owner did not ask to be excluded. Davidwr 00:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggestion to include another censorship example of Wikipedia: The paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" is relevant to various WTC pages, however it is not listed anywhere Johninwiki (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Absence of network neutrality = Internet censorship?
In response to a user trying to add savetheinternet.com (a pro-network neutrality website) to the external links section, I have to ask, is net neutrality an Internet censorship issue?--Daveswagon 02:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * AGREE: Bingo, Daveswagon. The person who keeps adding it is a sock puppeteer who likely is also a member of a "charter member" of the savetheinternet link, and that violates conflict of interest wiki policy.  Now I cannot revert the person due to the 3RR rule.  Will you please do it?  I concur it has nothing to do with the underlying wiki page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Net neutrality, or the lack of it, enables internet censorship; it permits corporations that control access points to the Internet to extract additional costs from those wanting to publish on the Internet or face loss of access; if a corporate access provider decides that it doesn't like a particular publisher's message, it could block access to that website if there isn't an obligation to provide common carriage without discrimination. In particular, minority voices are often silenced; note that not only so-called liberal groups are concerned with this threat, but also conservative Christian groups, who fear that their message may be silenced if net neutrality is not preserved. -- Anon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.21.2.202 (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Sock Puppeteer: you are raising speculative/future issues. Further, the claims you are making about what corporations might be able to do being tantamount to internet censorship are also speculative and represent your point of view, your POV.  Even as you stated the issue, there are 2 POVs, and you are promting only the one, not coincidentally the one your organization promotes on the website your organization is a "charter member" of and on its own website.


 * Therefore, while your arguments may be perfectly legitimate and valid, they are not wiki worthy yet, and especially on this Internet censorship page. Perhaps on a Net neutrality page, if there is one, your arguments may be appropriate if a section is presenting the arguments by all sides of the issue.  But not here.


 * You see the problem is not the content, rather it is the wiki policies that are designed to enhance the chances of getting really encyclopedic articles, not soapboxes for people to promote their own view of the world. Right now your edits are largely soapboxy here and in numerous other places you have edited as your various sock puppets.  That is why person after person, besides myself, keeps reverting your edits over and over again.  You see, this is wikipedia.org, not ala.org, where the ALA can say whatever it whats, for example.


 * No one, not even me, is doing anything other than complying with wiki policy when we remove your soapbox additions. Just look at Jessamyn, for example. She is openly an ALA supporter/member.  She occasionally trims or removes my edits.  Yet so long as she follows wiki policy, then she is right. I don't keep going back and adding back in what she removes. Simple.  The rules make an even playing field. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Daveswagon just removed the link. Thank you, Daveswagon.  Know this IP address is a sock puppet for a particularly single minded sock puppeteer and constant vigilence may be needed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Anon, what is the significance of "equal access" to net neutrality? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is getting tiring. Would the anonymous poster(s) who keep reposting the link find an established editor to post the link for them the next time it is removed?  Preferably someone who can write a good, concise argument in support of having this link here.  Ironically, but for the recent edit war leaving a bad taste in my mouth I might be willing to do it myself.  If this edit war keeps up I'm going to recommend the page be semi-protected or the principles in the edit war use the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes.  Davidwr 05:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And under a third sock puppet, 68.22.206.96, since this issue was raised on this talk page. I saw the edits here and on the Bess page and did not edit war them.  I saw the reasoning he used in the history comment and that it was incorrect; I knew people could see that for themselves.  It's getting to the point of plain vandalism.  The person does what he wants and wiki policy need not be followed.


 * You know I went to see if there is a net neutrality page. There is.  That's where the link goes, if added in a wiki-complaint manner, and not on this page.  Even if added in good faith, it just does not belong on this page.


 * I purposely did not edit war knowing someone else would do it now that it is becoming clear that what I have been reporting in the past is now happening before everyone's eyes. It is rather vexing.  I like your idea of blocking IP addresses because of the constant sock puppetry, but this sock puppeteer has been doing this kind of thing for a very long time, much longer than it is reasonable to block IP addresses.  I really don't know what to do other than sit back and let the person bury himself and let other people make some reversions as well.  So if you have ideas, go for it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that anonymous editors are permitted and even encouraged under Wiki policy. If the edit is potentially legitimate, as Davidwr seems to concede, my anonymous status should have no bearing on any decision about the edit's propriety. Even more important, consideration of the link should not be based on LAEC's objection to one of the members of the coalition, or the fact he seems to believe that anonymous editors are not allowed under Wiki policy, or the fact that I disagree with his evaluation of the link's appropriateness (and indeed, if his objection is that one member of the coalition is the American Library Association, a group who he carries out a campaign against via his website safelibraries.org, one must question if the basis of his objection isn't POV and not based on the actual utility of the link.)


 * Ordinarily you are correct. However, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling claims the account is a Sock Puppet account.  Assuming this is true, it is better if an established editor with no history of ties to web site or any of its "charter members" put their name on that particular link.  This will avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest and will hopefully end this edit war once and for all.  If such a person is not available, an established user who does have ties to that web site but who has a demonstrated history of adhering to Wikipedia policies can restore the link the next time it gets removed. Davidwr 15:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the substance of why the link is useful, internet censorship can be undertaken by corporations as well as governments, a point I attempted to make in my earlier entry. If the telecoms that control the Internet aren't subject to common carriage regulations, a whole swath of the Internet may well go dark; and those messages that the corporation disagrees with could be refused publication altogether - the very definition of censorship -- even though the Internet is a public resource. -- Anon.


 * An additional note: I was not the editor who added the link in the first place. I happen to agree that it's useful. -- Anon


 * And now a fourth sock puppet, 68.22.205.150, also mapping to Richardson, TX per arin.net. On my Talk page, waiting Jessamyn revealing how she knows it's from Chicago, home of the ALA.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Anon, there you go again. This is a second time you are admitting/implying the harm you claim is something that may happen in the future.  It is not the case now.  It does not belong on this page.  You can discuss what may happen in the future on the net neutrality page, but not on the Internet censorship page because it's your POV and it hasn't happened yet.  Further, my problem is not with newbie edits.  Rather, the problem is one that wikipedia has with members of organizations adding links to themselves.  Before I was aware of wiki policy, I added links to myself too.  They are all down now.  And I don't add them back because I know the rules now.  The problem with you is not your newbie status.  Rather it is that your are a member of the ALA, and as such, you cannot add a link promoting the ALA of any group in which it is a member.  That violates conflict of interest.  Further, you have violated quite a number of other policies, and generally you do not work with the community.  Rather you plow ahead and do what you want despite the community.  Your edits have been reverted again and again by a number of editors.  I don't even revert all your self serving POV edits anymore because people are catching on to your tactics and complying with wiki policy.  And all my claims about you being a sock puppeteer? Well frankly you prove it again and again.  Just during the course of this Talk section you have morphed 4 times!  Exactly what is it you are trying to hide? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Morphing? A charitable explanation might be that he's moving from one library computer to another. :) Davidwr 03:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm curious as to how this person is gaming the system. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you asking how he is changing his IP address? That's not gaming the system, it's just par for the course.  There are several obvious ways to change your IP address.  You can go from one library to the next.  You can take your laptop a coffee shop, where you will probably get a different IP address each day.  You can use dialup, where ever-changing IP addresses are the rule not the exception.  If you have DSL or Cable you can force a new connection pretty easily.  Some ISPs will give you a new number when you do that.  The last two were ATT, which points to dialup or DSL, so my guess is he's redialing or a new DSL IP address. Davidwr 05:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, but how are the addresses so, well, confined to a certain narrow range? And as to gaming the system, this person has in the past admitted his actions and took on a real, though silly, name.  Yet now this person is back to the ever changing IP addresses again. And Jessamyn revealed the addresses are in Chicago, but has not answered how she figured that out.  Do you know?  Do you know a way to narrow it down further? Legally, of course. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Many IP addresses have domain-names associated with them. 68.22.205.150 is adsl-68-22-205-150.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net.  That looks like a DSL customer in the Chicago, Illinois area.  The other 68.22 and 68.21 addresses are also probably DSL Ameritech customers from Chicago.  68.20 and 68.23 addresses also belong to AT&T and may also be Chicago-area addresses.  Ameritech is part of AT&T, formerly SBC. I see no "gaming." Davidwr 14:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll only point out that the ONLY basis for LAEC's claim of sockpuppetry is the fact that 1) the editor is anonymous, and 2) that the editor disagrees with his edits. And the page includes information about both past and future threats to free access and free expression on the Internet, and corporate censorship is as much a threat as government censorship.


 * Not surprisingly, there's been absolutely NO reasoned discussion about the actual substance of the link itself - just LAEC's unsubstantiated complaints about sockpuppetry because an anonymous editor disagrees with his edits (not to mention his ad hominem and unsubstantiated attacks on the editor solely on the basis of the editor's anonymity.)
 * I think the reason there hasn't been any discussion is because it's not in dispute. I think if this wasn't a sock-puppet case the link wouldn't have been edited away.  Just a hunch.  Davidwr 14:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If LAEC's so concerned about conflict of interest, he himself should immediately cease editing any and all pages to do with Internet filtering, ALA, and censorship, given his operation of a group that a)openly campaigns against ALA, and b)promotes both filtering and censorship in public libraries (safelibraries.org).


 * Whoa! I do not support censorship!  You are displaying your bias!  And you are attacking the person again!  I do not necessarily support filters.  What I support is people choosing for themselves what they want, not a policy being forced on them by the ALA, and not my policy which is irrelevant.  This is particularly important where the US Supreme Court has ruled against the ALA yet the ALA continues to mislead people as to the facts and law surrounding filters. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I can see, you support forcing public library users to use Internet filters whether they want to use filters or not.  That's not a choice.  That's censorship.


 * Listen, the choice has to be up to the community, not the ALA. When Oak Lawn, IL wanted Playboy out of the library, and I mean the government asked the library to remove it, the library refused, and Judith Krug et al. got directly involved to ensure that.  You are a member of the ALA, a high ranking member.  It comes as no surprise to anyone that my efforts to educate people to make their own decisions instead of allowing the ALA to make them is construed by you as forcing public libraries to use filters.  To this day, Playboy is still available in Oak Lawn, and children can still ask for any page range and it will be photocopied for them.


 * You know what else? The mayor of that town is afraid the only way to clean the ALA influence out is by suing you, but he is afraid of the cost of doing so.  You, the ALA, has successfully forced its way into the local community, while claiming all the while that local control is key.  Really, your actions and the actions of the ALA's OIF top leadership are reprehensible, to say the least. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As for conflict of interest, first, as I said earlier, I didn't add the original link; I simply agreed that it was useful. Second, I'm not a member of Save the Internet, but am thinking it must be useful to support them, since someone who promotes Internet censorship through filtering is so anxious to prevent anyone knowing about them. - Anon.


 * Since you claim the use of filtering is tantamount to Internet censorship, and since I am calling for compliance with constitutional filtering laws, you are therefore holding me in good company with the US Supreme Court. Thank you.  Oh that's right, the ALA thinks the US Supreme Court's allowance of filtering is tantamount to Internet censorship.  Isn't there a wiki policy that says wacky, way out policies like the ALA saying SCOTUS is wrong don't get included in articles? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Internet filtering imposed by the government, with the intent to block access to ideas or opinions that the government disagrees with, constitutes censorship.


 * And repeating: the only basis for the claims of sockpuppetry is that the editor (myself) is anonymous and disagrees with LAEC's edits. Anonymity is permitted on Wikipedia.  Disagreements occur on Wikipedia.  Neither are sockpuppetry.  I've always spoken in one voice. -- Anon

Call for immediate truce and dispute resolution
This sock-puppet-or-not/legitimate-edit-or-not fight between LegitimateAndEvenCompelling and a few other editors on one hand and the anonymous Chicago-area DSL customer last seen at 68.21.161.170 over http://www.savetheinternet.com is growing weary and is not good for the article or Wikipedia. I looked into asking for the page to be semi-protected, but according to Wikipedia's Protection policy, Semi-protection should not be used: In a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users. This leaves two main options:  Either a private agreement, or using Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution policy. Negotiation and mediation are also options. Please declare a truce and solve your differences. Thanks. Davidwr 14:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The only person supporting the sock puppeteer is the sock puppeteer. You are trying to be fair to both by suggesting that someone other than the sock puppeteer should add the link, if appropriate, because of the wiki policies involved that make the sock puppeteer's edit here on this issue a violation of various wiki policies.  All other commenters are against the sock puppeteers edits.  Further, other editors on other pages continually revert the sock puppeteer when violation of wiki policy occurs, which is rather frequent.  Good wikipedians should not be held hostile to a persistent violater of wiki rules.  There is no compromise here when violations of wiki policy are occurring as they are.  Which wiki policy shall we uphold in the compromise and which wiki policy will we allow to be violated by the compromise?  That's the problem here.  I have no problem displaying the constant violations of wiki policy by the sock puppeteer.  Further, I have no problem getting all the various editors who have reverted the sock puppeteer, in some cases over and over again.  The differences are in whether to follow wiki policy or whether to violate wiki policy.  I, you, and all other editors choose to follow wiki policy.  The sock puppeteer choses to violate it again and again.  That persistance does not get rewarded with a "compromise" where certain wiki policies of our choosing are compromised.  The link sought to be added does not belong on this page at all, perhaps on the net neutrality page.  Yet I see the sock puppeteer has not added it there.  That's the compromise.  Take the link out here and add it where it beleongs, if the people on the net neutrality page agree.  And in respect of wiki policy, people must be advised of the person's conflict of interest problems, among other things.


 * All other commenters are against the sock puppeteers edits. All? Not true.  I am not against the edit.  I am just against him doing the edit.  I am against rewarding bad behavior.  If it wouldn't be seen as rewarding bad behavior, I might add the link myself.  I still might but not before a few weeks of silence on the matter passes first.  Davidwr 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, we agree. What you said is the meaning I meant, not the other meaning.  Agreed.  So all are against his doing the edit, not the substance of the edit.  Exactly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Compromise: consider moving the link to net neutrality page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the edit  11:52, 4 May 2007 LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (Talk | contribs) (28,839 bytes) (rv - consensus has been reached - someone help stop this vandal) There are two issues here:  The appropriateness of the link and the appropriateness of allowing this anonymous IP address with a likely conflict of interest to post this particular link.  While the first is in dispute, it's not a heated dispute and that discussion seems to be on the back burner at the moment.  More important right now seems to be the 2nd dispute:  Should this anonymous editor be making this particular edit.  The "vote" seems to be "everyone to 1" against allowing this person to post this link at this time.  Technically this is not a 100% consensus but it's close enough for this issue.  If the person using this anonymous address's goal is to have the pride of making the link himself, he should use the Wikipedia dispute resolution process as outlined above.  If his ultimate goal is to get the link added, his best course of action is to cool it for a few weeks, register an account and use it for non-censorship-related edits, then use this talk page to propose adding the link.  If he already has an established account, then wait a few weeks to let passions cool down.  At that time, he should propose the link here and discuss it.  Why not add the link directly?  Two reasons:  One, the link itself is still the subject of debate.  Two, there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest with anyone associated with the ALA adding this link.   Either case is grounds for discussing it here before adding the link.  If nobody objects or you have a lot of people saying "yes" and few people objecting after a few days, then make the link. Davidwr 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me since it adheres to wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll point out again that the only basis for LAEC's accusations of sockpuppetry is the fact that the editor (myself) remains anonymous, and that I disagree with his edits of this page, specifically, his elimination of a link that others believe is useful, in in part (if not in whole) because an organization he politically opposes is a member of the coalition represented by the link. I believe his reasons for removing the link are POV and wrong, but we don't discuss that.


 * I don't know why the numbers change each time, but they do. I don't control it.  Also, I've never represented myself as more than one person.


 * My understanding is that Wikipedia policy not only permits, but encourages anonymous editors, and that anonymity alone should not be the basis for removing an editor's contributions.


 * I think what would be far more useful is a SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION about the link's merits, rather than accepting at face value LAEC's accusations, which, as I said, have no basis other than the fact that the editor is anonymous. I'm ready when you are.


 * Okay, but link stay off until the discussion is over. And you are wrong about other things you said but I'll let it slide this time out of mere time constraints. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed bot to auto-revert anonymous edits that post the disputed link
I'm not proposing we do this today, but if this dispute continues, it is likely he will eventually be blocked from editing Wikipedia altogether, and/or this page will become semi-protected. I would prefer an alternative: Request a bot that will block this IP address range from editing this article. Even better, a bot to block this IP address range from posting that particular link to this article. Either way, other anonymous users will be able to edit this article and this anonymous user will be able to contribute to the rest of Wikipedia. What do you guys think? Has anyone here ever written a Wikipedia bot? Davidwr 14:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: I've proposed a generic bot that meets these requirements.  Unless a coder steps forward, it won't happen even if the idea is approved.  Davidwr 14:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems like overkill for a single dispute on a single article.--Daveswagon 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Taking no position on this since I'm not technically smart enough, let me just say this single article is but one of a number the sock puppeteer edits, and those pages often include similar wiki policy violations. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: A bot is ready should the need arise. If most of the editors want a bot to auto-revert the savetheinternet URL, it can be done.  Personally, I hope we don't have to resort to it.  We are adults here and we should be able to solve disputes without resorting to force.  See User_talk:Shadow1 for details.  Davidwr 23:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I must say, from a technical point of view, that sounds quite interesting. As in how the programming is done to implement that.  And I asked some admins for help.  Here's some guidance from an admin: "Well you can bring it up on WP:ANI and/or get the socks declared socks, which makes the blocks easier." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll point out again that the only basis for LAEC's accusations of sockpuppetry is the fact that the editor (myself) remains anonymous, and that I disagree with his edits of this page, specifically, his elimination of a link that others believe is useful, in in part (if not in whole) because an organization he politically opposes is a member of the coalition represented by the link. I believe his reasons for removing the link are POV and wrong, but we don't discuss that.


 * I don't know why the numbers change each time, but they do. I don't control it.  Also, I've never represented myself as more than one person.


 * My understanding is that Wikipedia policy not only permits, but encourages anonymous editors, and that anonymity alone should not be the basis for removing an editor's contributions.


 * I think what would be far more useful is a SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION about the link's merits, rather than accepting at face value LAEC's accusations, which, as I said, have no basis other than the fact that the editor is anonymous. I'm ready when you are. -- Anon.


 * Perhaps you have a dynamic IP. At any rate, you could add strength to your argument by simply registering for a user name. Technically that is more anonymous than your current technique since your ISP, geographic location, etc can't be seen.


 * Anyway, I would support adding a short blurb about how anti-net neutrality may qualify as Internet censorship, but I don't think an external link is appropriate.--Daveswagon 21:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

China blocking Wikipedia
I am currently in Beijing and for the past two days I have been able to access wikipedia, except for a few entries regarding the Tiananmen Square massacre, Taiwanese independence and internet censorship in China. I'm not sure if this is a legitimate reason for changing the section about Chinese censorship, which says that wikipedia is blocked in China, but I thought I should mention it. I also apologize if this post does not meet talk page guidelines, I am new to wikipedia. 219.238.118.226 04:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I am actually a member of wikipedia, I just messed up and wasn't signed in when I wrote the above post. Sorry. Jacda1313 04:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Did somebody dissappear this guy or his/her account? no evidence of the account or even the IP? it is so spooky Taprobanus 13:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Censorship in Sri Lanka
The statement is backed by RS. Even the one quoting the minister of asking to hire hackers to hack the website. Wikipedia editors document what RS say and is not up to us to judge who is joking and who is not. If there is other RS saying that that it was a joke then that could also be added. Watchdogb 16:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia. not some silly blog. The minister was joking . We don't include such trivial information here. And again. there is no proof the government is blocking Tamilnet. just allegations. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement I have added comes from a reliable source, the international Herald tribune. If it is believed that this is a false or even controversial statement please provide reliable source for that believe. Same thing goes with the hacking statement by the minister. Do you have a statement by the minister that it was really a joke? Watchdogb 18:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think in a civil war situation a government has the right to do what it wants especially with respect to pro rebel websites but that cannot be equated with wholsale internet censorship in Sri Lanka. Thanks Taprobanus 18:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Brazil
I did some editing on the Brazil segment. Considering the major occurrence to date - the Youtube ban - was partial in its reach, occurred solely to protect someone's (supposed) lawful right to privacy, and that it was corrected by the courts after a couple days, I don't think Internet censorship in Brazil is harsher than in Thailand or Fiji, for example. Also, I fail to see why Senator Azeredo's bill should even be mentioned here, when it never went beyond the "proposition" stage in Congress, and was broadly criticised by the public. Missionario 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This page censored!
Interestingly Vodafone's "Content Control" blocks this page, but not the rest of Wikipedia (that I can see). It doesn't block the articles on Censorship in the UK, or Internet censorship in the UK. I think it is keywords maybe? Secretlondon 02:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Frequently censored websites section
This section is so broad with topic that it serves no purpose in the article. If no one objects to removing it within a week im going to do so. Just let me know otherwise because there are no statistics out there that claim more websites are censored then others. Unless you can find one within a week, it's going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 23:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Censorship in Canada
This may seem like a relatively minor issue, but I'm wondering if the statements concerning Canada's Cleanfeed implementation might be a little heavy-handed? The cybertips.ca website lays out pretty clearly what they do and don't block (they don't block any content originating inside Canada, for instance, or content that maybe be illegal but isn't explicitly pornographic) and that they stick exclusively to Child Pornography (which in Canada, unlike any other form of information, is illegal to view and possess under *all* circumstances), not to mention their close cooperation with law enforcement agencies and support from the Government of Canada. Considering Michael Geist approves of Cleanfeed, combined with its stated goals and objectives (and appeals process), I think the last sentence of the section, aside from being un-sourced and lacking an NPOV, is pure FUD. --RAult (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight...
It says Chile is one of the "friends of the Internet" but then it says: "The Chilean Government also block the access in their computers to blogs or electronic versions of the local newspapers with opinions against the Government or the ruling colalition" What does that mean exactly?

According to the map these places are "friends of the Internet": Venezuela Dominican Republic Mexico Ecuador Bolivia Paraguay Uruguay Iceland Papua New Guinea Philippines Cambodia Mongolia Brunei Darussalam Bhutan Dili Israel Lebanon Moldova Croatia Zagreb Bosnia and Herzegovina Montenegro Serbia Kosovo Albania Macedonia + all the tiny blue circles + all the places in Africa

Does that mean these places do not even filter things child porn? The LMOE (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest getting rid of RSF's map from the article and replacing it with something else. Their "friends of the Internet" list is years out of date. Unfortunately, I can't suggest a better one.

alifbaa —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC).

More shades of yellow in graphic than in key
There appear to be three shades of yellow in the world map graphic, but only two in the key. --Farry (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I only see one shade... Kevin chen2003 (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing Citations
Hey all. Just edited a missing citation under the psiphon section --0imagination (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Italian Internet Censorship
To all, be aware that in Italy, with the excuse of fighting online money betting (online sport betting websites and online casino hosted outside italy - where the govenament cannot enfoce direct supperssion of websites), and fighting websites with pedopornographic contents, italy has laws that force internet provider to apply DNS filtering and IP filtering to users.

the banned ip addresses are listed publicly when it comes to online gaming (http://www.aams.it/site.php?page=20060213093339418) but are not available those of the filtered IPs of website with pedopornographic contents. It has been proved that between those banned IP there are some without pedopornographic content (political? personal opinions on istitutions as the church?).

So, I would really suggest to move Itlay at the very top of the list, because Italy do apply real censorship.

Bangladesh banned Bangla blogging platform
Bangladesh has blocked a popular blogsite http://www.sachalayatan.com/ Reference: www.bdnews24.com and www.prothom-alo.com, both are in Bengali language. A quick googling would reveal blogger community who condemn the event. I suggest including Bangladesh's name in this article.

Sachalayatan readers and bloggers from Bangladesh have been denied access to the site for the last 24 hours. The Government Source in Bangladesh has yet to make any official comments about blocking Sachalaytan, a popular free thinking, secular and pro democracy writers' forum. Sachalaytan has already weighed in the possible technical glitches with its host company in the USA and any ossibility for technical glitches has already been ruled out.

http://www.bdnews24.com/bangla/details.php?id=30918&cid=2 —Preceding unsigned http://www.amadershomoy.com/online/content/2008/07/18/news0894.htm

Malaysia
Why isn't Malaysia in this article. They clearly censor the internet as you can verify here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Malaysia#Censorship_of_Internet

France and HADOPI
The purpose of the HADOPI law is to limit the use of P2P software to share copyrighted content. To do so, the media companies will monitor a small set of files on P2P networks, and transmit the IP adresses of the computers found sharing the files to the HADOPI. So the law won't result in proper filtering of the internet. Christine Albanel (culture minister) stated that public wireless Acess points would have to enforce a white list of trusted websites, but the idea was abandonned.

Image copyright problem with File:Batelco.blocked.png
The image File:Batelco.blocked.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --16:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cuba
Reporters Without Boarders have made too many unsupported claims regarding Internet connectivity in Cuba to be accepted as an exclusive source. Prof. Salim Lamrani has documented a number of inaccuracies for the Centre for Research on Globalisation and has disputed RWB research in a comment piece published by USA Today. Dissident bloggers do exist, as he points out. Dynablaster (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Israel
The Holocaust part doesn't seem relevant. There is no mention of the internet in the law cited, and there is nothing special in this law that warrants its place in the article -- the law exists in other countries as well (Austria and Germany, I think). Israel has much stronger censorship laws that are actually used (military censorship), but I don't think they are relevant to this article either. There are no references for actual use of the Holocaust law for Internet censorship, so I am removing this part. Faustus (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Russia
Are we sure that what a single user does on ru.wiki is relevant to this article? :S  Snowolf How can I help? 10:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As of now, it looks like a clear POV-pushing. If someone arrives in another half-year and sees that BS there, please delete the unsourced/ biased content.FeelSunny (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Poland
The section of the article about Poland has been added by anonymous contributor (IP 78.131.137.50) on June 23rd. Originally it also contained information about hate actions against Arab people. All sentences in this section were questioned and citation was requested but never provided.

I certainly don't find polish Internet free of censorship. for example, the biggest ISP (TPSA) is blocking "dangerous sites" (mostly malware, phishing etc. they're using well known blacklists, but sometimes, for no reason they block for example gimp.org or irc.mozilla.org - happened to me), but I cannot confirm "massive manipulation" as described in the article. While definitely some people claim that portals are overusing control, I found no proof of planned "manipulation" and I don't think that the current version provides anything beyond FUD and conspiracy theory. --Zbraniecki (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is all conjecture. It's unclear what "portal censorship" even means, and the fact that some forum administrators like to misbehave (which is another uncited claim) does not amount to internet censorship. The blocking policy you mention is much more relevant, perhaps you could find some citations and rewrite the section? Haakon (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Major news portals moderators remove politicaly inconvinient comments on regular basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.248.165.10 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * i can partially confirm the "massive manipuilation" theory. it was clearly visible during 2007 elections in Poland. all major forums were literally flooded with 2-3 words slogans, often containing vulgar affronts to one of the two main political parties. i never saw such a massive manipulation campaign before, but that's just the rules of politics, i guess. anyway i added some more info about blocking policy and a link to TPSA's press release about that (only in Polish, unfortunetly). 22:05, 9 November 2009 (CET)


 * Not only. Military Information Services flooded forums with anti-emigration propaganda in 2004. Try to search "Wojska Łączności z Polonią". Unfortunately this topic wasn't discussed in english, since it is rather obscure local problem, but still we know, that various government agencies post propaganda using techniques similar to Hasbara. Since our expats are still being insulted on regular basis, we can suspect that they still do it, although not in so lame style as they did it before (by leaking military network IPs into webservers logs).

Circumvention
Maybe Freenet should be mentioned in this section? --82.171.70.54 (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I think there might be some use of that. Now I can also see the archives to see if my topic was mentioned before. Gnetter (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate usage of OpenNet Initiative rankings
Could someone please fix the OpenNet Initiative citations? For example, the bit for India states that India is in ONI's "nominal" category, when ONI has no such category. Whoever wrote this page is improperly citing rankings and categories all over the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.29.123 (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Internet cersorhip IS YOU
U ALL BUSTARDS POOL IS CLOSED 'CAUSE OF U RETURN WIKILIKS MIRROR LIST 0R DIE TITS NOT HELPZ!

P.S. DO U VOTE 4 WIKILIKZ MIRROR DELETION? FRIEND OF UZ? SOMEONE U RESPECT? U ONLY WAY FOR NOW: BECOME A HERO

( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.243.189.106 (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Greece
Is Greece censored yet? Anyone know of any censorship in Greece? I'm clearly and utterly surprised. Gnetter (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Two references:


 * Greek blog aggregation service administrator jailed, service censored
 * amnesty blogs "Greeks worry that Internet freedom may soon be gone" Gnetter (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Georgia
Another country not in the list. But it seriously restricted internet use during November 2007. Plus, the government blocked all the "ru" domain during the War in South Ossetia. That could be well nemed amongst the dumbiest internet freedom restrictions ever:/ Links: FeelSunny (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Information without Borders
The Information without Borders wiki that is linked to seems to have been spammed into oblivion since these links were added with no signs of life. I'm removing the section concerning them.Lynden Price (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan
Why is Pakistan shown in yellow in the image? It's censorship record is akin to that of Saudi Arabia. The image need to be changed. Please change it 110.225.72.129 (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Australia
I've moved the Australia paragraph out of Substantial and into Nominal because despite the high profile internet filter... it's still just 'proposed' and has now been delayed to a minimum of mid 2011 - and it has always been 'proposed'. The existing censorship, if you can call it that, is an extension of hate and libel laws (which can be ordered taken down like anywhere else, it just happens to be mentioned for Aus.) and child porn laws (like everyone else in the nominal list). Certainly Australia is no worse than other countries in the Nominal list - sites like YouTube have never been blocked as in Turkey, there is no mandatory disconnection of illegal downloaders as in France, there is nothing like the DMCA as in the US, and yet all these are 'nominal' whereas Australia gets 'substantial' on a proposed change in law. Bit of FUD there. 59.167.194.48 (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just had a look at the RSF image saying Australia is "Under Surveillance"... and WOW is that misleading. "Under Surveillance" in this context means that RSF is specifically watching the country, not that the country's government is specifically watching the citizens. The rsf website is mostly talking about proposed items. I'll add some disambiguating text in a moment. 59.167.194.48 (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Japan
please list andycjp (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

United States - COICA
I'm not sure if this is sufficiently notable to add or not, but it's already caused uproar over the 'net:
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-segal/stop-the-internet-blackli_b_739836.html
 * http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804

--The Fifth Horseman (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Coverage from other sources:
 * http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9188618/Online_IP_protection_bill_sparks_outrage
 * http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/09/groups-urge-hearing-on-online.php
 * http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/206459/cdt_protests_bill_requiring_registrars_to_enforce_copyright.html

Electronic Frontier Foundation both published a summary of the act and a copy of an open letter adressed to the US Senate Judiciary Committee:
 * http://www.eff.org/issues/coica-internet-censorship-and-copyright-bill
 * http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter

--The Fifth Horseman (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia, Tube8 and Porntube
Do these sites still exist? I tried using a VPN service to access the sites (using both a US and UK exit point) and on both occasions both sites still failed to load. RAM (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, they still exist. Yuck! AtticusX (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Internet censorship in Tunisia?
I have read that Internet censorship in Tunisia has been lifted. Perhaps this article should be updated to reflect this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.186.139.16 (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bring Back a Picture of the World Map & Censorship
Are you people trying to make an interesting article or bore us to death? Yawn, because its working...

I.e.: the old article at least looked good.

--(Gharr (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

TURKEY??
Because of the islamic AKP ruling, does anyone know how many websites cannot be reachable?It should be added to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.189.1.30 (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia, Censorship
This link doesn't go to the right page, nor could I find any page about wikipedia censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibinaear (talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

complaint to cyber court
Dear Sir,

please tell me How can I give a compaint in iternational or Indain cyber court. Please inform me if you have any email address.

Thanks

Salil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.141.206 (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Censorship in Tunisia
there is no no more sensorship in Tunisia after the revolution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maher92 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Article expansion, rewrite?
I've been thinking about expanding/rewiring this article to include more about Internet censorship by non-govermental actors as well as more on non-technical methods of censorship. I'm also considering splitting out the Internet circumvention material into a separate sub-article that would be somewhat parallel to the Content control software article. This would give the article more of a summary style.

What do others think? Would these be good changes to make? Jeff Ogden (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I started on this work by splitting out the circumvention material into a new article (Internet censorship circumvention). Jeff Ogden (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've also started work to expand/rewrite the Internet censorship article. There remains much work to be done. Jeff Ogden (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * nice effort, but I think we should really work on turning this into an article rather than just lists. It also needs a lot more sources, everything that is un-sourced should really be removed, or a source found for it. --SasiSasi (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'm pretty much done with my changes to the article. Hopefully, my changes over the last two weeks or so have move the article significantly. Could someone review the current article and either edit the article yourself or post suggestions here so someone can make the changes? Jeff Ogden (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I intend to make some changes to the articles. The majority at first glance with be adding more sources and commentary and a few edits here and there.  However, before I make these changes I wanted to suggest moving the bulleted points found in the introduction of the article into the body.  I believe that this information would be better suited later on after a definition and thorough description.  I wanted to discuss this before making any changes that big however as I am new to Wikipedia. MatRockswell (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no objection. With or without the move of the bulleted items from the lead, I think the lead needs to be improved to give a more complete summary of what has become a fairly long article. Jeff Ogden (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good; I hope to get started in the next few days. I'll flag any significant changes if necessary. MatRockswell (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I made those changes we discussed regarding the introduction; let me know what you think. Overall, there is a tonne of information in the article and not much I though needed to be changed.  You did a great job in overhauling the article.  The only thing I thought may benefit this article is a brief overview of arguments for and against internet censorship.  Let me know your thoughts on it. MatRockswell (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your changes look good to me. I made some minor copyedits. I think a new section on the arguments for and against internet censorship would be a good addition to the article. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Censorship or regulation pending in court
The both cases cited currently are not linked but both of them are cited in the following case and this case SHOULD result in the FCC regulating the Internet. In the United States all television and radio is censored and this did not stop Ms Jackson from displaying her right breast during the halftime of the Superbowl in 2004.

Neeley v NameMedia Inc., et al, (5:09-cv-05151)(11-2558)

PDFAPPELLANT BRIEF (56 PAGES)

PDFAPPELLEE BRIEF of NameMedia Inc, (19 pages)

PDFAPPELLEE BRIEF of Google Inc, (14 pages)

PDFAPPELLANT REPLY BRIEF (16 pages)

This case began because a minor daughter was troubled at school after googling her father's name and encountering nudity in "child safe" searches. Subsequently; The District Court for Western Arkansas ruled that moral copy+rights to not protect original visual art, -photography, online in Dkt 267 on page two. This absurd ruling is appealed and the Federal Communications Commission and Microsoft Corporation are sought added as a defendant and the FCC is requested to be ordered to regulate wire communications and particularly those known as the Internet.

I can't add this case or modify this article because I am the plaintiff who has demanded wire communications be regulated by the FCC as required by the Communications Act of 1934. See 47 USC §§ (151,152)

There is no decision made by the Eighth Circuit panel yet to require censorship but is pending from the three judge panel since Sept. 19, 2011. Censorship is already required by Federal Statute but is not done. Two plus two is four regardless of how long it has been treated as five. These links are all to my domain and the links from the case citation link to a mirror of the docket with links to the Court files via PACER or the original filings accessible for free. The link to the Federal definition of wire communication (47 USC §153 ¶(52)) is at the Cornell University Law School server.

Ignore this if you want but the FCC will soon be ordered to regulate the Internet just as they try to do television and radio. This regulation/censorship will either be done as a result of the ruling that is now pending or after the appeal to the Supreme Court.CurtisNeeley (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Which federal statute requires the censorship that is not done? Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Until the court makes its decision this is just speculation, isn't it? Has the court made a decision in this case yet? In any event, this topic seems like it would be more appropriate in an article such as Internet censorship in the United States rather than in this article which is about Internet censorship more generally. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Rate this page results?
I noticed that this page has been rated by 30 people (see the Rate this page box at the bottom of the article) and that the average scores are pretty much middle of the road, not terrible, but not particularly good either (2.5 Trustworthy, 3.0 Objective, 2.0 Complete, and 2.5 Well-written on a scale from 1 to 5).

What needs to be done to improve this article? Jeff Ogden (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As of 4 July 2012 the page had been rated by 87 people and the ratings are substantially better than they were back in August 2011:

Time    Ratings Trustworthy  Objective  Complete  Well-written August 2011:  30        2.5         3.0       2.0         2.5 July 2012:  87        4.5         4.8       4.3         4.8


 * --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Finnish Wikipedia Censored a Page for Political Reasons
Finnish Wikipedia administrators have a lot of sympathy towards the Green League political party. Mostly due this they have made a decision to prevent irritating facts appear about the gay spouse of the other presidential candidate until the final round of the voting is over. People asking about it on the discussion page have faced several day bans. They have made this decision by saying that "Spouses are not meaningful and therefore they are not going to allow anyone to make an article." This gay spouse has a criminal background (drunk driving, lying to a spouse, violence in bars, surprisingly low incomes etc.) I found (by Google) this article about it. Where this kind of censorship should be placed? The spouse is named Nexar Antonio Flores. http://slashdot.org/submission/1920791/wikipedia-censored-a-gay-article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.3.50 (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey! This is big news! Wikipedia sysop has restricted everyone to write to a certain page for political reasons. --109.240.181.154 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is an article on Censorship of Wikipedia where this might be included. That article usually talks about censorship of Wikipedia by others and this sounds as if it is censorship of Wikipedia by Wikipedia itself. There was once an article on Censorship by Wikipedia, but today that is a redirect to the main Wikipedia article where the only mention of censorship is censorship of Wikipedia (which has always seemed a little odd to me). Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Censorship in Pakistan
While there is plenty of blog activity on censorship in Pakistan, and the PTA is also involved in actively censoring content officially, there isn't much coverage by newspapers and the like to link to for citation. Despite that, there is blatant censorship. LastFM and a few lyrical websites are blocked. All major porntubes are blocked. As such, I propose to put Pakistan in the list of countries actively censoring content. 58.27.243.214 (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ❌ - This article doesn't really put countries on particular lists. That is done by the OpenNet Initiative (ONI), Reporters Without Borders (RWB), Freedom House, and less often by other watchdog groups. This article uses the information from those organizations to summarize the state of Internet censorship in the various countries and to organize the countries into the categories used in the article (Persuasive, Substantial, Selective, Under surveillance, Suspected, and No evidence). Pakistan is currently in the substantial category, the second highest level of censorship. Isn't that close enough to being on a list of "countries actively censoring content"? Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Which map?
Please see and comment on the discussion at Talk:Internet censorship by country#Which_map? about what version of the Internet censorship map should be used in this and several other Wikipedia articles. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Switched to an updated map that includes information from RWB and ONI through mid-March 2012. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Censorship in the USA?
I don't see any mention of the Department of Homeland Security's monitoring of social networks, which is detailed on its own website. It also has a lengthy list (in part provided on its site) of red flag words which include searches for 9/11, anarchy, protest... Or how about the NSA's monitoring of virtually all traffic? I don't know what the standards are for making the surveillance list but it's hard to imagine more sophisticated spying than our own. And certainly it can lead to self-censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.225.250 (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

SOPA and PIPA
If these become a law (which I definitely hope not), the United States on this map will have to change from "no evidence" to "pervasive":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_Censorship_World_Map.svg

Jonghyunchung (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It does not look like SOPA or PIPA will become law anytime soon, but it does seem likely that the bills will at some time in the future be renamed, rewritten, and reintroduced. If these acts or ones like them were to become law, I wonder if organizations such as the OpenNet Initiative, Reporters Without Borders, and Freedom House would see that as a strong enough reason to change their classification/rating of Internet censorship in the U.S. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, guess what. Ireland ignored the people's protests and approved SOPA in their country. Someone's gonna have to color Ireland fuchsia pink (pervasive censorship) right away. Jonghyunchung (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

How does this article relate? Global_Internet_Freedom_Task_Force — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ I added this to the See also section. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikileaks
Also, stating that the censoring of Wikileaks enjoyed widespread support as if it somehow minimizes the censorship is silly. One should mention it also sparked worldwide outrage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.225.250 (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ❌ - The statement being referred to in the above comment is a general one talking about censorship related to security concerns and not something that is specific to Wikileaks. The list of examples that follows includes Wikileaks, but is a list of sites that have been filtered due to security concerns and not a list of sites for which there is widespread public support for censorship. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Does SOPA section belong in this article?
The following sub-section was added to the article by User:Pass a Method at 10:57 on 4 July 2012:


 * ==SOPA==
 * SOPA is an acronym for Stop Online Piracy Act. It is a United States bill introduced by U.S. Representative Lamar S. Smith to expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement to tackle online trafficking of copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods. Provisions include stopping search engines from linking to the sites, and court orders requiring Internet service providers to block access to the sites. The law would expand criminal laws to include unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content, imposing a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

I added the following to the end of the new section at 12:19 on 4 July 2012:
 * In January 2012 following many online protests, Rep. Smith stated, "The House Judiciary Committee will postpone consideration of the legislation until there is wider agreement on a solution".

I don't think this information belongs in this general article. It is too U.S. specific and consideration of SOPA has been delayed. The article does not talk about any other laws (proposed or otherwise) in the U.S. or other countries. SOPA is covered in Internet censorship in the United States and in a separate article that is just about SOPA. What do others think? I am inclined to delete the new section unless support for keeping it is expressed here in the next few days. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ I went ahead and deleted the section. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree, SOPA is one of the mst oft quoted censorship in modern times. It obviously deserves a place on the article. Pass a Method   talk  16:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not only did you disagree, but you put the section on SOPA back in. I still don't feel that it belongs in this article. I think we need to get some other editors to comment so we can resolve our differences.


 * I will note that SOPA was a proposed law in the U.S. that has not been enacted and is not currently under consideration. So so far SOPA has censored nothing. SOPA is covered in its own article and in the article on Internet censorship in the United States. Those seem like the more appropriate places for the description. Please address these issues and not simply say "it obviously deserves a place in the article". --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

✅. SOPA section deleted. Please do not reinsert unless a consensus to do so is reached based on further discussion here. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday I added a number of See also links under a new sub-heading "Laws and proposed laws" that include PIPA and SOPA as well as links to articles about the associated protests. This could serve as a starting point for a discussion of anti-censorship activism as suggested by Abhayakara above and as outlined in the section that follows. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Anti-censorship activism section
I moved the following comment about Anonymous to be under "Organizations and projects" in the See also section of the article, rather than in a separate sub-section within the Overview section:


 * ===Anti-censorship activism===
 * Online hacktivist group Anonymous has expressed its opposition to internet censorship through protests and online hacking in several countries.

I'm creating this talk page section to allow for discussion of this move since the comment about Anonymous has already been moved around a bit within the article by several people.

My own thinking is that a section on Anti-censorship activism would be a welcome addition to the article, but it needs to cover the topic generally and not just include one sentence about one group. For now the See also section covers some of this material by presenting a list of Wikipedia articles about organizations and projects engaged in Internet censorship issues. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

United States Communications Act of 1934
The Communications_Act_of_1934 authorized the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to promote the safety of wire communications and this law REQUIRING censorship is ignored by the FCC as well as most people on Earth including every editor of this article so far. This editor is prevented by NPOV from adding it here.


 * (59) Wire communication1


 * The term “wire communication” or “communication by wire” means the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the points of origin and reception of such transmission, including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of communications) incidental to such transmission.

Wire communications has been the definition of all internet wire and internet radio telecommunications since 1934. This definition does not need to be adjusted to require the Federal Communications Commission to censor interstate and world-wide wire communications used in commerce to promote the safety of these internet wire and internet radio telecommunications.

People using cellphones, iPpads, iPhones and other "wireless" devices are simply using wire communications along with using radio communications for the last jump from the wires to the "wireless" device.


 * 47 USC § 151 2chapter; Federal Communications Commission created
 * For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the “Federal Communications Commission”, which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter. (Bold added above.)

[sic]"Internet" is simply a common slang term generated from the contraction of (interactive, international, interconnected, interesting, inquisition, etc) and (network) and [sic]"Internet" is not suitable for legal documents or laws due this imprecision. e.g. warmer, cooler, etc.

Telegraph machines and fax machines are nothing but the wire communications apparatus that are usually being replaced by computers today. These can be physically set up in a courtroom for demonstration to judges and jurors. There is one aspect of the communications component that is generally thought missing and this is immediate verification of delivery. This communications component is not actually missing except by choice.3

Congress attempted to censor unsafe wire communications twice but these attempts were stopped from being enforced by the Supreme Court. 47 USC §230 4 was followed by 47 USC §231 5. These two attempts will be followed by the ideas that can be read in "47 USC §232" 6. This proposed law will be sought as the new FCC policy and will not require congressional action or protesting. This proposal is pending as last pages of Exhibit B 7 to the complaint in the Western District of Arkansas Federal Court in Neeley Jr v FCC et al, (5:12-cv-5208) 8.CurtisNeeley (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

USA and Google do not support the UN move to control the Internet
USA announces they will not stand with the UN vote to regulate the Internet. http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/12/13/us-refuses-to-sign-un-internet-regulations/ FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk)
 * Cf: Global_Internet_Freedom_Task_Force — FYI also, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems like something for the Internet governance article. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Are protection of intellectual property and copyright forms of censorship?
Several changes were made to the article that removed mention of intellectual property and copyrighted material as possible targets of or motivations for censorship. The changes were made at 15:54 on 11 February 2013‎ by User:Xenophrenic with the edit summary "wording per cited sources; (note cite actually says prop rights is regulation, not a major objective of filtering, pg 9); copy edit". I'm not sure if the problem here was that the statements did not seem to be well supported by the cited reference (in which case we could reword or look for better references) or if the feeling is that blocking access to intellectual property and copyrighted material aren't examples of censorship (in which case deleting the material is probably appropriate).

Here are the changes (emphasis added):

Before:
 * There are several motives or rationales for Internet censorship: politics and power, social norms and morals, and security concerns. Protecting intellectual property rights and existing economic interests are two additional motives for Internet censorship. ...

After:
 * There are several motives or rationales for Internet filtering: politics and power, social norms and morals, and security concerns. Protecting existing economic interests is an additional emergent motive for Internet filtering. ...

Before:
 * Protection of intellectual property and existing economic interests (sub-section heading)


 * Sites that share content that violates copyright or other intellectual property rights are often blocked, particularly in western Europe and North America. In addition the protection of existing economic interests is sometimes the motivation for blocking new Internet services ....

After:
 * Protection of existing economic interests (sub-section heading)


 * The protection of existing economic interests is sometimes the motivation for blocking new Internet services ....


 * References

Should intellectual property and copyright as targets of or motives for censorship be removed from or included in the article? Or asked in much more concrete terms, is the fact that sites such as the Pirate Bay are blocked in some countries a from of Internet censorship or not? --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Deleting the above noted content as unsourced was appropriate. You are correct, however, that a broader discussion could be had as to the definition of censorship, especially as it applies to intellectual property, creative works and content, etc. Most would agree that Wal-Mart's decision to not carry certain books, CDs, DVDs (because they find something objectionable) can be considered a form of censorship.  Most would disagree, however, that Wal-Mart's decision to sell (for money) books, CDs and DVDs, instead of letting customers walk away with them for free, is a form of censorship.  Likewise, when a state, government or major industry seeks to prohibit the public's access to property (intellectual, tangible, or otherwise), most would consider that a form of censorship; but seeking only to inhibit customers from walking away with the property for free, while still leaving its availability unrestricted to the public -- most would agree that does not constitute censorship. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Xenophrenic, thanks for your comments. I am hoping that additional editors will comment as well. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What if Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) passed and became law?
If this happens, the United States on the Internet censorship map will have to change from green (little/no censorship) to instant pink (pervasive). Jonghyunchung (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There is some informtion on CISPA in the Internet censorship in the United States article as well as the separate article on Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Questionnaire results rounded up?
I'm guessing they were since the question "Increased government control of the Internet would have no effect." adds up to 101%. Can someone fix this? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 17:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * ❌. The values for each question all add up to 99%, 100%, or 101%. The 99% and 101% values are due to rounding, but the rounding was done in the original report. So the material is quoted accurately and there isn't any good way to "fix it". It doesn't cause a real problem. I did add a note alerting readers to this issue. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Okedokie! Thanks for the reply ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms section?
Shouldn't there be a "Criticisms" section, outlining all the arguments for why attempts to censor the internet in general are bad? Nottrobin (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe. Everything in Wikipedia needs to be presented with a neutral point of view. It is hard to write "Criticism sections" that are neutral. Some, perhaps many, people feel that some Internet censorship is a good thing, depending on what is being censored (child pornography is one example). So any section needs to present both the "bad" and the "good" reasons for Internet censorship. Keep in mind that Wikipedia generally discourages pro and con lists in favor of a more general discussion integrated into the body of the article. And the discussion needs to offer a worldwide perspective and not just a U.S. or western perspective. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC concerning the Lavabit email service
There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at

Talk:Lavabit

At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:


 * Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user Joey006@lavabit.com for alleged possession of child pornography.

Your input on this question would be very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Treatment of Google in sub-section on " Major web portal official statements on site and content removal"
User:Jarble and I have been going around about adding a link to Censorship by Google in the sub-section that talks about Major web portal official statements on site and content removal or even pulling out the three items about Google into a new sub-sub-section on "Content removal by Google". I don't think that Google should be singled out any differently than the other providers listed, either by adding a template at the top or by creating a new sub-sub-section. The article on Censorship by Google is already listed in the Censorship and websites template that appears toward the bottom of the article. The template has links to "Censorship by" articles for several other companies. If someone feels that the visibility of censorship by companies need to be raised in the Internet censorship article, that is fine. I just don't think the place to do it is in the sub-section on "Terms of service". And, if something is done, it should be done for all of the companies and not just Google.


 * --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Internet censorship map colors?
There is a discussion going on over in Wikipedia Commons about possible changes to the colors used in the Internet Censorship map and elsewhere. It would be good to get some additional editors comments on this. If you are willing, would you pop over to Commons:File talk:Internet Censorship World Map.svg and let us know what you think? --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Censorship Source Software
Please provide practical instructions on how to detect if your web server has been blocked, who it was blocked by, and what to do about it. I have some websites that were working until recently. I can access the server via TeamViewer and I found the server is working on localhost but I cannot access any webpage such as www.freetom.info online or by direct IP address http://75.139.208.52/ My only clue it might be government censorship is my city administrator reported me to the US Attorney’s Office of Civil Rights because of an email he didn't like. I know I can simply move the server to get a new IP address but I would like to know what the problem is first. 209.34.136.42 (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but Wikipedia is not an Instruction manual or How to guide. See WP:NOTMANUAL. Without stronger evidence, I would not assume government censorship just because you can't reach your websites. I would contact your ISP or web hosting company for assistance. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

US pink?
Why is it pink in the world map, but green in the linked paged Censorship_by_country? should i edit it?Adamsmo (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * upon further inspection, it uses the terminology of OpenNet, which the linked article also says showed the US to have little/no filtering. I'm confused by this.  It looks like only one of the sources suggests censorship/filtering while the others don't.  So, since the article seems to suggest the source as OpenNet (I also checked their site - the source - it says no evidence of filtering) i am considering editing the map Adamsmo (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the article Internet censorship and surveillance by country. The map summarizes that article. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Internet censorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.renesys.com/blog/2011/01/egypt-leaves-the-internet.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/218064/with_wired_internet_locked_egypt_looks_to_the_sky.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CRQWMrK5?url=http%3A%2F%2Fthelede.blogs.nytimes.com%2F2011%2F09%2F15%2Fin-mexico-social-media-becomes-a-battleground-in-the-drug-war%2F to http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/in-mexico-social-media-becomes-a-battleground-in-the-drug-war/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262541963intro1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110227051329/http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/the-cascading-effects-of-the-arab-spring-28575/ to http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/the-cascading-effects-of-the-arab-spring-28575/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120126060054/http://www.future500.org/blog/censorship-fallout-from-the-arab-spring/ to http://www.future500.org/blog/censorship-fallout-from-the-arab-spring/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

A negative section.
This article should have a section about sites wich do not apply any censorship like wikipedia or liveleak... Neurorebel@--167.56.4.105 (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Good selection of articles
Check this list of topical articles: https://censorbib.nymity.ch/#Weinberg2017a We may summarize the recent research here. Zezen (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Internet censorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511185218/http://www.riaclu.org/friendly/documents/2005libraryinternetreport.pdf to http://www.riaclu.org/friendly/documents/2005libraryinternetreport.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925110123/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/001/2004/en/9dc9d9e2-d64d-11dd-ab95-a13b602c0642/asa170012004en.pdf to https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/001/2004/en/9dc9d9e2-d64d-11dd-ab95-a13b602c0642/asa170012004en.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/in-mexico-social-media-becomes-a-battleground-in-the-drug-war/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111013195601/http://blog.freedomhouse.org/weblog/2011/10/chinas-growing-army-of-paid-internet-commentators.html to http://blog.freedomhouse.org/weblog/2011/10/chinas-growing-army-of-paid-internet-commentators.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226100258/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11329 to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11329
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226100258/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11329 to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11329
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226100258/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11329 to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11329

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: We create a new article for internet shutdowns
Hi

I think it would be sensible to have a separate article on internet shutdowns, as they aren't the same thing as censorship. I know there are articles for specific internet shutdowns but not about the concept. Am I missing the article and its just called something else? Here are a couple of references while I have the pages open


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7L0brpne9w
 * https://www.accessnow.org/ethiopia-blocks-internet-in-eastern-part-of-country-again/
 * https://www.accessnow.org/an-internet-shutdown-during-pakistans-elections-not-on-our-watch/
 * https://www.accessnow.org/shutdown-ended-cameroonians-still-feeling-impact/
 * https://www.thequint.com/news/india/2018-internet-shutdowns-shot-up-says-rti

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Censorship of Alex Jones for TOS violations.
Proposed edit to Internet censorship: append to first paragraph:

On 06 August 2018, for example, several major platforms, including YouTube and Facebook, executed a coordinated, permanent ban on all accounts and media associated with conservative talk show host, Alex Jones, and his popular media platform, InfoWars, citing "hate speech" and "glorifying violence."

It might be true that they removed 20 million videos. But most of those don't meet wikipedia's guidelines for notability, none of them belonged to a channel with millions of followers, nor did any of them generate such widespread media attention.

That section needs an example, and there is no more relevant event I can find. Nearly every major news organization has an article or video on the subject. &mdash;  Kdr&beta;ats22 &#124;&#124;  Talk  &mdash;  19:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * First, edit summaries are for brief explanations of an edit. Never make personal attacks in an edit summary as you did in your article edit. Secondly, you are now violating WP:EW. As for the edit content, you need to take this to the article talk page. The article appears to conflate government censorship and TOS violations. Removals due to TOS vios occur over a billion times a year. Under too broad a definition of censorship, deleting SPAM would be considered censorship. This should probably be handled differently than it is now. Also, using this particular example is probably contentious and should, in my mind, be avoided. O3000 (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

First off,, I should have taken the issue here for discussion before undoing your undo. However, I didn't attack you personally, although I can see how you would think that. I was talking to anyone who might be tempted to revert my edit because, as you say, the issue might be contentious. Nevertheless, I was wrong and I apologize for that.

Now, Let's address the most pressing issue: why you think my edit "makes the article clearly worse." Or did it appear to have been made in bad-faith? Please read up on on Wikipedia's rollback guidelines and get back to me, because otherwise the edit needs to be restored in order to satisfy Wikipedia's bias toward the status quo until a consensus is reached here.

Since you didn't specify for whom concern about contentiousness should be considered, I'll address the the likely possibilities:


 * 1) Alex Jones - I can see nothing even remotely offensive or vulgar in the edit or associated sources. Therefore, and since no specific phrase has been specified which would violate Wikipedia's policy regarding living persons in non-biographical articles, we must heir on the side of completeness and absolute truth and keep the edit as-is.
 * 2) Political Idealogue - There is no reason to keep relevant, well-sourced, article-improving information away from anyone, especially the vast majority of readers, based on the demands of irrational actors.
 * 3) Every Other Reader - Anecdotal objections to an edit based on hypothetical contention is a Fallacy of consequence. There is no evidence that any person or group is harmed or would feel marginalized by reading a sentence containing the buzzword "Alex Jones."

As far as conflation of issues in the context of the entire article, you're right. If you think this page should be split into two, we can discuss that. However, I don't think that is necessary since the title implies no specific form of censorship by any particular type of entity. Sure, it discusses government censorship. But the word "organization," for example, appears 18 times. There is also a section on content-control software; and another regarding requests by copyright holders for content removal based on copyright violations; and yet another on social media censorship. I could go on, but I think it's clear: This article is about internet censorship in general, and it has been for a long time. Adding a single sentence doesn't change that fact.

Therefore, given the significance of the issue due to the large amount of content removed, the millions of Info Wars' followers who were affected, and the countless articles and other reputable media reports available for sourcing, this issue is clearly relevant in the proposed context. &mdash;  Kdr&beta;ats22 &#124;&#124;  Talk  &mdash;  04:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1.	Never make an edit to a page using another editor’s username, as you did above by copying an edit from my talk to this talk with my signature.
 * 2.	Your entire discussion on rollback guidelines is irrelevant as I didn’t rollback. What I did is challenge your edit by reversion. The correct procedure is outlined in the essay WP:BRD.
 * 3.	Please learn how to WP:INDENT as this will quickly become difficult to follow.
 * 4.	As you edit-warred your addition into the article and now admit you should have taken the issue here for discussion before undoing my undo; please self-revert to consensus. Then we can discuss in the advised manner as per BRD. O3000 (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

OK. I'm not sure what you mean by "self-revert to consensus" but I'll assume that since you didn't address the substance of any of my arguments regarding the edit content that we have in fact now come to a consensus on the issue. &mdash;  Kdr&beta;ats22 &#124;&#124;  Talk  &mdash;  16:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, there is no consensus for your change. Since your addition has been challenged, you need to revert the addition that you improperly edit-warred into the article and convince folks here that the change makes sense. In your own edit summary, you brought up politics, which suggests you think that the change is political in nature. If an example is helpful, and I'm not convinced of that, let us find an example that doesn't carry with it rather a large amount of political baggage and is very recent WP:RECENTISM WP:NOTNEWS. Also, watch the snark. O3000 (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

OK. If someone can provide an example with just as much significane and available sourcing, I'm open to compromise there. However, since you also admitted it seemed contentious, please tell me what you thougut the nature of such contention would be, if not political. &mdash;  Kdr&beta;ats22 &#124;&#124;  Talk  &mdash;  17:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, since it appears that every time you respond there is a new issue with the edit  or your position has evolved, so please clarify exactly what your objections are in general and to my earlier responses regarding the edit. &mdash;  Kdr&beta;ats22 &#124;&#124;  Talk  &mdash;  18:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My position hasn't changed. The problem is that I need to continue explaining the guidelines to you. There is no consensus for your addition. Remove it and try to gain consensus. WP:BRD O3000 (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to do that because my currently-standing "revert" is actually an edit if you look closely at the difference. What's more, I don't believe your revert was made according to the guidelines:

"Before reverting a change to an article in the absence of explicit consensus, be sure you actually have a disagreement with the content of the bold edit (and can express that disagreement), not merely a concern that someone else might disagree with the edit. A revert needs to present a path forward, either by expressing a concern with the content of the edit itself, or pointing to a previous discussion that did."

If you have a problem with the content of the edit, tell me so we can discuss it. &mdash;  Kdr&beta;ats22 &#124;&#124;  Talk  &mdash;  21:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

BTW Im saying that based on our talk page conversation. &mdash;  Kdr&beta;ats22 &#124;&#124;  Talk  &mdash;  21:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have explained this again and again. WP:RECENTISM WP:NOTNEWS WP:BRD WP:CONSENSUS WP:NPOV You are pushing a POV based on simple TOS violations of what these organizations have all decided is an extremist, hate monger. I don’t know what your point is in doing this. But, this is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Last time, revert your edit and explain why your addition should be kept. The onus is on you. You need to explain why your challenged edit, forced by edit-warring into the article against guidelines, should remain. Perhaps you can do this. But, you have refused to justify your edit. O3000 (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Censorship or not?
The Major web portal official statements on site and content removal section seems out of place. As our article on censorship states in the first sentence censorship is undertaken by government authority. Many people are under the mistaken impression that if Twitter removes a post or Youtube bans an uploader for whatever reason they want, that this is censorship. Users typically agree to this within the Terms of Service whereas censorship is usually involuntary suppression. We should ensure this article explains that it cannot be censorship since users can post that content on alternative web sites therefore making it free speech and not censored speech. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Updated censorship in non-technical section to include stifled or throttled search results by Google and other search engines by law, dependent on the operating country. Hope this helps to show the government suppression rather than the false sense of censorship by the cite itself or parental control search blocking. Jackelyn Salome (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Censorship
Nice Roshan T24 (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Should this Article include Gab, or name other specific platforms and examples
I searched for "digital censorship", and ended up here. I try to learn to edit (reading Wikipedia Policies, etc...) and spend some time on the Article on Gab, and my journey has caused me to hypothesise that one could imagine that there is a spectrum of speech that is potentially censored. Religious speech might be on the "more safe" side of the spectrum (at least in the American/Western Civilization context) and "anti-semitism" would be on the "more controversial" side, with safe meaning "easier to achieve consensus for inclusion in a Wikipedia Article, and "controversial" being a type of speech that inflames the passions of Editors, which leads to all manner of Administrative and disciplinary issues. I put forth this notion for the purpose of inviting discussion and possible dissent, because the overall intention here is to create some sort of model, or roadmap that may help guide both myself and other Editors who try to engage in this area, because as it stands right now, IMO, it's a random "free-for-all".  People (meaning Editors) make up whatever they feel at any given moment, with no consistency with regard to the application of standards. Specifically, for my purposes, it would be nice to read some sort of guideline on how to approach this issue (what is and is not censorship), and either avoid intense conflicts, or bring them to faster and clearer resolution, in order to maintain a professional, collegial relationship with other Editors, vs. "hard conflicts" that result in people either giving up, or getting into trouble with blocks and bans, etc... due to infighting.

The reason why I framed it this way, and alluded to these specific types of "censorable speech" is because my efforts on Gab have thus far has put free speech in direct contradiction with a societal desire to suppress "offensive speech", and this desire is so strong on the part of some people that they are either willing to accept "censorship" as most people would understand it as a higher, transcendent value, or even deny that there is a diminishment of free speech when offensive speech is censored. Some people will deny that suppressing some offensive speech is not actually considered censorship, which leads me to conclude (at least in my own opinion) that the act of denying censorship is taking place, is actually an act of censorship, which then falls in direct contradiction to the Wikipedia Policy of "Wikipedia is not Censored".

I also think that naming notable anecdotal examples of digital censorship (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, internet domain name seizure, deplatforming, demonetization, etc...) would serve as a sort of guide when attempting to address the issue of digital censorship on those types of platforms. This Article, in it's current form, is too ambiguous (and is therefore "safe") to give the Reader any clear sense of to what it might apply to, and how. "When they came for Daily Stormer, I wasn't a Nazi, so I said nothing. And when they came for Alex Jones, I was in favor of vaccines, and so I said nothing.  And then they came for Milo, but I wasn't a gay Alt-Right Gamer and Anti-feminist, so I said nothing.  IMO, this thing is absolutely ratcheting up, and someone needs to do something, so I'm stepping into the breach.  People look to Wikipedia for a common sense and reliable way to understand what is actually happening, vs. what's being reported in the corporate-controlled news.  Wikipedia should serve as a check, and a balance against corporate censorship, and not an agent of it.Tym Whittier (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Minor edit: change DNS_poisoning to DNS_spoofing
This because the pop-up text does not work, but i am not sure if the redirect to DNS_spoofing is the cause of that. I like the term poisoning better in the context of the article. Maybe --> DNS_spoofing (poisoning)

BobRomeo (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)