This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This Wikipedia article claims that Russia has no censorship. However, it does have censorship, which should be noted here. This blog post does not give the full picture, and obviously isn't good source material, because it's a blog post, but it gets the idea across. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.222.46 ( talk) 23:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, i've began this talk page because i found an inconsistency with the sources of the "Venezuela" classification, in fact, neither "Reporters Sans Frontiers" nor the "Open Net Initiative" classify this country as a "Pervasive" internet control. Even worse, the only reference on that article is a newspaper reference. Chiguireitor ( talk) 17:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
On 9 May 2011 the following comment was added to the section on Turkey (in the middle of a ref) by 78.182.196.81:
I copied the information here and will delete the comment from the article. This would be good information to include in the article, if there is a source to cite. Jeff Ogden ( talk) 02:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I think we can officially upgrade Australia to a Black Hole. http://www.news.com.au/technology/internet-filter/telstra-optus-to-begin-censoring-web-next-month/story-fn5j66db-1226079954138#ixzz1Q1W8lmsl - 88.109.121.188 ( talk) 02:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/06/france-on-its-way-to-total-internet-censorship/
Would someone be so kind to write up something and add to France's section? - 88.109.119.50 ( talk) 01:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I think some of the labels used is somewhat misleading... to my understanding "censorship" means a larger entity's deliberate attempt to hide or withhold information from their people which, in turn, is seen as a negative "freedom harming" act by said people.... or at most a "better of two evils" kinda thing (but still "an evil"), such as the censoring of letters sent home during WW2 by the US Gov't, to prevent people from accidentally (or even deliberately) revealing sensitive information. This, as opposed to, say the banning of child pornography from US-based websites, which I doubt anyone would consider to be any form of "censorship".
As such, perhaps the map and similar text be replaced with a range that covers BOTH people-approved and people-unapproved censorship? Or make a clear separation between states which censor information in the traditional sense of the phrase, and states which censor information in the technical sense of the phrase, or something along those lines? For example, the way it stands right now, Canada, the United States and most of Europe has censorship levels equal to some the more repressive regimes in the Middle East, namely "Some Censorship". However, I'm sure the reasons for those levels are different; that is, while people in Libya are probably less keen on the Kadaffi Government censoring their internet traffic (well, all things considered), I doubt people in the United States and Canada are protesting the fact that the US Government censors child pornography.
Likewise, it is my understanding that "No Censorship" implies that the right of a person to read and post stuff online is protected along the lines of the tenants of "freedom of speech", versus a more literal interpretation of "No Censorship", such as those nations are a safe-haven for stuff like child porn and data covering human trafficking "tips and tricks".
Now if these ratings ("No Censorship", "Some Censorship") are those set by some kind of organization with their own set definitions of that "censorship" is, and is NOT one that based on the aforementioned understandings, then I feel that the graphic showing that data SPECIFICALLY state this as well as give the specific definitions of how "No Censorship", "Some Censorship", etc is defined by that organization. That is to say, as it stands now, it seems like the data shown in the graphic is based on the ACTUAL fact of the matter according to common understandings of those terms, versus a specifically defined rating which runs contrary to common understanding and/or is based on the more literal interpretations of them.
At least this is how I see it... -- 66.92.0.62 ( talk) 22:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
At 14:22 on 19 January 2012 Northamerica1000 replaced an updated 2011 map with an older version of the map from 2009 with the following explanation: (+ citation needed. Replaced image with one that is referenced by empirical research / academic sources Image:Internet blackholes.svg: (Open net initiative, University of Toronto, Harvard University))
Here is the map that was removed:
Pervasive censorshipSubstantial censorship Selective censorshipUnder surveillance No evidence of censorshipNot classified / No data
- Note: Internet censorship in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya has changed since the Arab Spring of 2011.
I'm the person who created the updated map that was removed. My update was based on the 2009 map and is a summary of the data in this article and in the Censorship by country Wikipedia articles (the same 2011 to 2009 map swap was done in the Censorship by country article).
I am uneasy using a map with data that is now three years old and out-of-date wrt to the current Wikipedia articles. The articles and the 2011 map should be updated again to include or summarize new information that has been made available and that is going to be made available next week by ONI and RWB.
Unless there are strong objections I am inclined to revert back to the updated 2011 map. Jeff Ogden (W163) ( talk) 21:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Denmark has a filtering system for "child pornography". It was "accidentally" used to block Google and Facebook. [1] -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 12:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.227.144 ( talk) 19:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The following content was added to the Indonesia section by Miguetlastra ( talk | contribs) at 5:07 and 5:12 on May 1st:
After copying the content here I deleted it from the article. To be included in the article the content needs to cite some reliable sources. In addition Wikipedia isn't in the position of rating a country's level of censorship, but summaries ratings by the OpenNet Initiative, Reporters Without Boarders, Freedom House, and the U.S. State Department's Human Rights report and places the country in the appropriate categories based on that information. - Jeff Ogden (W163) ( talk) 15:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Before I moved the Indonesia section, Miguetlastra ( talk | contribs) made two edits at 21:45 and 22:17 on 1 May that added the following content:
I left the new content in the article for now, but edited it a bit and added a number of templates to flag serious problems that I see. The new content does include two references, but the references do not support the new content except in the most general way and they are both to sources from 2011, when the new content is making claims for April 2012. Unless the new content can be improved within the next few days, I suspect that it should be deleted. - Jeff Ogden (W163) ( talk) 04:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the map, I can't help but wonder, how is Germany filed under "no evidence of censorship"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.107.248 ( talk) 22:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Romania, at fist look. Could be a Commons problem. 79.116.147.35 ( talk) 09:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Censorship does appear to take place in the UK, through transparent filtering. There is no official legal policy to disclose what has been censored and why, or to whom. Some people report apparent per-user censorship, and legal policies do exist in the country for the continuous surveillance of targeted individuals without a requirement to inform them of the process which led to the decision. (Some people report being surveilled for years, both physically as well as online).
The absence of a declared policy on censorship in a country does not justify the assumption that none takes place there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.173.88 ( talk) 07:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I just reverted a change made at 11:00, 17 September 2012 by User:My very best wishes. The edit summaries for the change and my revision are:
I would like to understand more about why the "article below template was unreadable". It looks OK to me using Firefox and Safari with a wide window, a narrow window, and everything in between. But, if there is something that needs to be fixed, once we understand the problem we should fix it. -- Jeff Ogden (W163) ( talk) 16:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to equate South Korea with North or China. Yes, censorship in South Korea (where I currently live) is much more pervasive then in all other OECD countries. This has been pointed by others at File talk:Internet Censorship and Surveillance World Map.svg and commons:File talk:Internet Censorship and Surveillance World Map.svg. The map should distinguish between countries better; for example North Korea is classified as the "enemy of the Internet" (pervasive censorship everywhere); China is listed as pervasive in two areas, and substantial in another two, whereas South Korea has onlyone pervasive, one substantial and one selective. I'd sugget implementation of weighted score. Until this is done, with SK in the same color as NK, the map is, as somebody has described it already, sadly ridiculous. (And no, I am not defending SK censorship, but any argument which equates it with what's going on in NK or China is deeply flawed and worse, misleading to our readers). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
A new filter is being brought in which trys to block all porn (and only porn). http://www.ibtimes.com/uk-porn-filter-censorship-extends-beyond-pornography-one-isp-fighting-back-1361379 One can however opt-out of having the filter imposed on you (provided you are over 18 and are the one paying for your internet). Does this count and should the be added to the part about the UK? Also would this change the colour on the map in the top right hand corner? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.27.189 ( talk) 17:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
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 and Surveillance World Map.svg and let us know what you think? -- Jeff Ogden (W163) ( talk) 21:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
At 11:28 on 12 January 2014 IP 82.166.214.210 deleted the following sentence from the sub-section on Gaza and the West Bank with an edit summary that said "Removed a non relevant line. Media censorship in general is out of scope for this article, and since there is no merit to the claim that Israel censored any Internet resources on Gaza strip, the sentence was also misleading":
At 22:19 the same day I restored the deleted sentence with an edit summary that said "The material was sourced so evidence is needed to backup the claim used to justify the deletion. See talk page.
As mentioned the material was sourced, so there should be some evidence given for the claim that "there is no merit to the claim that Israel censored any Internet resources on Gaza strip". The source was the OpenNet Initiative and they are all about the Internet. In today's world the Internet is one part of the media and so this is not out of scope for this article. And while the Israeli forces are mentioned, so are "political upheaval and internal conflict". Israel shouldn't be assumed to be the only source of the media constraints mentioned in this sentence.
RWB's "Enemies of the Internet 2014" newly includes the US, the UK, India and other countries as well as some private sectors and inter-governmental cooperations, while Burma is no longer included. But in this article, there is still 2012 version of the list. Will we have to update this? -- ImpMK ( talk) 18:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
>United Kingdom >No evidence of censorship
That's a joke for a start. This really needs updating. - 88.104.76.138 ( talk) 13:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I am pretty sure it is possible in the US to sue somebody in court for publishing illegal material and getting the court decision enforced. In respect of other countries, such enforcement is called censorship. And has there never been a website shut down or blocked by a US authority or whatever because of child pornography? What about websites that conflict with the US war on terror? Why is all that not mentioned in the article? Henning Blatt ( talk) 18:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) (also known as H.R.3261) bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011 should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Its quite controversal. A number of internet users are saying its America’s first Internet censorship system. Just my 2 cents. Henry123ifa ( talk) 03:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Does MegaUpload [2] count as censorship in the US? It was taken down by the government. pkmn2539 ( talk) 09:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. I doubt think US should be in the green zone. Nor should UK. Apparently UK has blocked TPB (ThePirateBay) and US ISPs are doing something (i'm too lazy to put it in words) as of July 1st. Here's the link
American ISPs to launch massive copyright spying scheme on July 2012
Jacnoc (
T)(
C
E
L
B) 16:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This is pretty biased. A little
look out of wikipedia, and world is not really as black/white with Tehran and Pyongyang for black side and US & its friends for white side! Many authors even consider threats to internet freedom posed by US as overwhelming biggest: while censorships in India, EU and DPRK are easily considered as practicing state's souvereignty! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Konikula (
talk •
contribs) 14:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Should the U.S. and U.K. really be in the same category as China and Iran? That seems ridiculously inaccurate... There needs to be some distinction between legitimate and illegitimate censorship--There's a difference between censoring child pornography versus censoring political and religious content. And "changing situation"?? Must I even explain why this is a VERY unclear (and not at all helpful) label? -- Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq ( talk) 02:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that the core of the problem is that "censorship" and "surveillance" are being classed together, but at various points in the article(s), the words are used together as "censorship and surveillance" and at other times rather inaccurately written only as "censorship". In regard to censorship specifically, I doubt the US is much stricter than other advanced countries and what can be published online is fairly close to what can be published on paper. But of course the US does surveillance big-time, and the Reporters without Borders link says that's why RwoB doesn't like US policies. (This is leaving aside whether users in other countries are any less surveilled by the NSA than users in the US, and also leaving aside that Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand participate in Echelon with the US.)
It would take some work, but I think a better presentation of the data would be to separate censorship and surveillance into two categories which would be displayed separately. It might also be worth bringing out the RwoB list explicitly, explaining what RwoB doesn't like about each country on its enemies list. DWorley ( talk) 17:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
i feel that these topics deserve their own separate articles, according to the way information is portrayed in this article, one is led to believe saudi arabia and iran are in the same catagory as the UK and the United states.
Midgetman433 ( talk) 18:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Can Portugal really be classified as having little or no censorship? Despite having an article in its Constitution that bans all forms of censorhip, Portugal blocks at least two high-profile sites: The Pirate Bay and Uber. Shouldn't that be classified as selective censorship? -- 141.92.129.45 ( talk) 10:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
In an 18 December 2014 announcement the OpenNet Initiative said that: [1]
After a decade of collaboration in the study and documentation of Internet filtering and control mechanisms around the world, the OpenNet Initiative partners will no longer carry out research under the ONI banner. The [ONI] website, including all reports and data, will be maintained indefinitely to allow continued public access to our entire archive of published work and data.
The ONI website also stated that ONI's summarized global Internet filtering data will be updated in early 2015. [2]
The ONI data and reports together with the "Enemies of the Internet" and "Countries under Surveillance lists" from Reporters Without Borders make up the primary sources upon which the classifications in this article are based. The RWB Enemies list wasn't updated in 2015 and the Under Surveillance list hasn't been updated since 2012.
Because ONI will be updating their summarized global Internet filtering data and the RWB Enemies list was updated in 2014, we have a bit of time to figure out what we want to do about maintaining the classifications in this article on into the future. But it would be good to start developing a plan now. Suggestions?
The article currently says:
One possibility for the future is to de-emphasize the OpenNet Initiative (ONI) and Reporters Without Borders (RWB) since their reports are going away and to rely more heavily on the Freedom on the Net report from Freedom House. The FOTN report covers 65 countries. Would this be a good approach?
Are there other sources that classify or rank Internet censorship and/or surviellance that we should be considering?
Restriction to the opening of public wifi have been partially removed 3 years ago. -- 191.5.87.72 ( talk) 11:34, 20 January 2016
Using Freedom House to evaluate worldwide internet censorship and surveillance is a bad idea, especially now that the page includes surveillance. If it's 86% funded by grants from the U.S. government and its page contains controversies where its stance was seemingly influenced by US politics, as well as analyses, it should not be used as a source. In fact, any government-aligned organization should probably not be used to evaluate governments. That would be like quoting Al Jazeera on Qatari freedom. Prinsgezinde ( talk) 14:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
It is misleading to combine internet censorship and surveillance together when they are two completely separate things. For example in the United States there is almost zero censorship enforced by the state. Whereas in some countries both censorship and surveillance are extensive. This paints a misleading picture about the situation. Xanikk999 ( talk) 23:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I think combing them together when ranking nations is very misleading. My reasoning is that these two topics are not mutually inclusive. You can have high levels of survellience without very little censorship such as in the United States.
Combining them together paints a very misleading picture when referring to the map. Most people would not be under the impression that the United States and the United Kingdom have the same level of internet censorship and surveillance as North Korea and Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanikk999 ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This Wikipedia article claims that Russia has no censorship. However, it does have censorship, which should be noted here. This blog post does not give the full picture, and obviously isn't good source material, because it's a blog post, but it gets the idea across. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.222.46 ( talk) 23:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, i've began this talk page because i found an inconsistency with the sources of the "Venezuela" classification, in fact, neither "Reporters Sans Frontiers" nor the "Open Net Initiative" classify this country as a "Pervasive" internet control. Even worse, the only reference on that article is a newspaper reference. Chiguireitor ( talk) 17:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
On 9 May 2011 the following comment was added to the section on Turkey (in the middle of a ref) by 78.182.196.81:
I copied the information here and will delete the comment from the article. This would be good information to include in the article, if there is a source to cite. Jeff Ogden ( talk) 02:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I think we can officially upgrade Australia to a Black Hole. http://www.news.com.au/technology/internet-filter/telstra-optus-to-begin-censoring-web-next-month/story-fn5j66db-1226079954138#ixzz1Q1W8lmsl - 88.109.121.188 ( talk) 02:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/06/france-on-its-way-to-total-internet-censorship/
Would someone be so kind to write up something and add to France's section? - 88.109.119.50 ( talk) 01:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I think some of the labels used is somewhat misleading... to my understanding "censorship" means a larger entity's deliberate attempt to hide or withhold information from their people which, in turn, is seen as a negative "freedom harming" act by said people.... or at most a "better of two evils" kinda thing (but still "an evil"), such as the censoring of letters sent home during WW2 by the US Gov't, to prevent people from accidentally (or even deliberately) revealing sensitive information. This, as opposed to, say the banning of child pornography from US-based websites, which I doubt anyone would consider to be any form of "censorship".
As such, perhaps the map and similar text be replaced with a range that covers BOTH people-approved and people-unapproved censorship? Or make a clear separation between states which censor information in the traditional sense of the phrase, and states which censor information in the technical sense of the phrase, or something along those lines? For example, the way it stands right now, Canada, the United States and most of Europe has censorship levels equal to some the more repressive regimes in the Middle East, namely "Some Censorship". However, I'm sure the reasons for those levels are different; that is, while people in Libya are probably less keen on the Kadaffi Government censoring their internet traffic (well, all things considered), I doubt people in the United States and Canada are protesting the fact that the US Government censors child pornography.
Likewise, it is my understanding that "No Censorship" implies that the right of a person to read and post stuff online is protected along the lines of the tenants of "freedom of speech", versus a more literal interpretation of "No Censorship", such as those nations are a safe-haven for stuff like child porn and data covering human trafficking "tips and tricks".
Now if these ratings ("No Censorship", "Some Censorship") are those set by some kind of organization with their own set definitions of that "censorship" is, and is NOT one that based on the aforementioned understandings, then I feel that the graphic showing that data SPECIFICALLY state this as well as give the specific definitions of how "No Censorship", "Some Censorship", etc is defined by that organization. That is to say, as it stands now, it seems like the data shown in the graphic is based on the ACTUAL fact of the matter according to common understandings of those terms, versus a specifically defined rating which runs contrary to common understanding and/or is based on the more literal interpretations of them.
At least this is how I see it... -- 66.92.0.62 ( talk) 22:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
At 14:22 on 19 January 2012 Northamerica1000 replaced an updated 2011 map with an older version of the map from 2009 with the following explanation: (+ citation needed. Replaced image with one that is referenced by empirical research / academic sources Image:Internet blackholes.svg: (Open net initiative, University of Toronto, Harvard University))
Here is the map that was removed:
Pervasive censorshipSubstantial censorship Selective censorshipUnder surveillance No evidence of censorshipNot classified / No data
- Note: Internet censorship in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya has changed since the Arab Spring of 2011.
I'm the person who created the updated map that was removed. My update was based on the 2009 map and is a summary of the data in this article and in the Censorship by country Wikipedia articles (the same 2011 to 2009 map swap was done in the Censorship by country article).
I am uneasy using a map with data that is now three years old and out-of-date wrt to the current Wikipedia articles. The articles and the 2011 map should be updated again to include or summarize new information that has been made available and that is going to be made available next week by ONI and RWB.
Unless there are strong objections I am inclined to revert back to the updated 2011 map. Jeff Ogden (W163) ( talk) 21:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Denmark has a filtering system for "child pornography". It was "accidentally" used to block Google and Facebook. [1] -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 12:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.227.144 ( talk) 19:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The following content was added to the Indonesia section by Miguetlastra ( talk | contribs) at 5:07 and 5:12 on May 1st:
After copying the content here I deleted it from the article. To be included in the article the content needs to cite some reliable sources. In addition Wikipedia isn't in the position of rating a country's level of censorship, but summaries ratings by the OpenNet Initiative, Reporters Without Boarders, Freedom House, and the U.S. State Department's Human Rights report and places the country in the appropriate categories based on that information. - Jeff Ogden (W163) ( talk) 15:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Before I moved the Indonesia section, Miguetlastra ( talk | contribs) made two edits at 21:45 and 22:17 on 1 May that added the following content:
I left the new content in the article for now, but edited it a bit and added a number of templates to flag serious problems that I see. The new content does include two references, but the references do not support the new content except in the most general way and they are both to sources from 2011, when the new content is making claims for April 2012. Unless the new content can be improved within the next few days, I suspect that it should be deleted. - Jeff Ogden (W163) ( talk) 04:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the map, I can't help but wonder, how is Germany filed under "no evidence of censorship"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.107.248 ( talk) 22:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Romania, at fist look. Could be a Commons problem. 79.116.147.35 ( talk) 09:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Censorship does appear to take place in the UK, through transparent filtering. There is no official legal policy to disclose what has been censored and why, or to whom. Some people report apparent per-user censorship, and legal policies do exist in the country for the continuous surveillance of targeted individuals without a requirement to inform them of the process which led to the decision. (Some people report being surveilled for years, both physically as well as online).
The absence of a declared policy on censorship in a country does not justify the assumption that none takes place there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.173.88 ( talk) 07:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I just reverted a change made at 11:00, 17 September 2012 by User:My very best wishes. The edit summaries for the change and my revision are:
I would like to understand more about why the "article below template was unreadable". It looks OK to me using Firefox and Safari with a wide window, a narrow window, and everything in between. But, if there is something that needs to be fixed, once we understand the problem we should fix it. -- Jeff Ogden (W163) ( talk) 16:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to equate South Korea with North or China. Yes, censorship in South Korea (where I currently live) is much more pervasive then in all other OECD countries. This has been pointed by others at File talk:Internet Censorship and Surveillance World Map.svg and commons:File talk:Internet Censorship and Surveillance World Map.svg. The map should distinguish between countries better; for example North Korea is classified as the "enemy of the Internet" (pervasive censorship everywhere); China is listed as pervasive in two areas, and substantial in another two, whereas South Korea has onlyone pervasive, one substantial and one selective. I'd sugget implementation of weighted score. Until this is done, with SK in the same color as NK, the map is, as somebody has described it already, sadly ridiculous. (And no, I am not defending SK censorship, but any argument which equates it with what's going on in NK or China is deeply flawed and worse, misleading to our readers). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
A new filter is being brought in which trys to block all porn (and only porn). http://www.ibtimes.com/uk-porn-filter-censorship-extends-beyond-pornography-one-isp-fighting-back-1361379 One can however opt-out of having the filter imposed on you (provided you are over 18 and are the one paying for your internet). Does this count and should the be added to the part about the UK? Also would this change the colour on the map in the top right hand corner? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.27.189 ( talk) 17:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
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 and Surveillance World Map.svg and let us know what you think? -- Jeff Ogden (W163) ( talk) 21:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
At 11:28 on 12 January 2014 IP 82.166.214.210 deleted the following sentence from the sub-section on Gaza and the West Bank with an edit summary that said "Removed a non relevant line. Media censorship in general is out of scope for this article, and since there is no merit to the claim that Israel censored any Internet resources on Gaza strip, the sentence was also misleading":
At 22:19 the same day I restored the deleted sentence with an edit summary that said "The material was sourced so evidence is needed to backup the claim used to justify the deletion. See talk page.
As mentioned the material was sourced, so there should be some evidence given for the claim that "there is no merit to the claim that Israel censored any Internet resources on Gaza strip". The source was the OpenNet Initiative and they are all about the Internet. In today's world the Internet is one part of the media and so this is not out of scope for this article. And while the Israeli forces are mentioned, so are "political upheaval and internal conflict". Israel shouldn't be assumed to be the only source of the media constraints mentioned in this sentence.
RWB's "Enemies of the Internet 2014" newly includes the US, the UK, India and other countries as well as some private sectors and inter-governmental cooperations, while Burma is no longer included. But in this article, there is still 2012 version of the list. Will we have to update this? -- ImpMK ( talk) 18:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
>United Kingdom >No evidence of censorship
That's a joke for a start. This really needs updating. - 88.104.76.138 ( talk) 13:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I am pretty sure it is possible in the US to sue somebody in court for publishing illegal material and getting the court decision enforced. In respect of other countries, such enforcement is called censorship. And has there never been a website shut down or blocked by a US authority or whatever because of child pornography? What about websites that conflict with the US war on terror? Why is all that not mentioned in the article? Henning Blatt ( talk) 18:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) (also known as H.R.3261) bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011 should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Its quite controversal. A number of internet users are saying its America’s first Internet censorship system. Just my 2 cents. Henry123ifa ( talk) 03:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Does MegaUpload [2] count as censorship in the US? It was taken down by the government. pkmn2539 ( talk) 09:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. I doubt think US should be in the green zone. Nor should UK. Apparently UK has blocked TPB (ThePirateBay) and US ISPs are doing something (i'm too lazy to put it in words) as of July 1st. Here's the link
American ISPs to launch massive copyright spying scheme on July 2012
Jacnoc (
T)(
C
E
L
B) 16:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This is pretty biased. A little
look out of wikipedia, and world is not really as black/white with Tehran and Pyongyang for black side and US & its friends for white side! Many authors even consider threats to internet freedom posed by US as overwhelming biggest: while censorships in India, EU and DPRK are easily considered as practicing state's souvereignty! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Konikula (
talk •
contribs) 14:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Should the U.S. and U.K. really be in the same category as China and Iran? That seems ridiculously inaccurate... There needs to be some distinction between legitimate and illegitimate censorship--There's a difference between censoring child pornography versus censoring political and religious content. And "changing situation"?? Must I even explain why this is a VERY unclear (and not at all helpful) label? -- Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq ( talk) 02:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that the core of the problem is that "censorship" and "surveillance" are being classed together, but at various points in the article(s), the words are used together as "censorship and surveillance" and at other times rather inaccurately written only as "censorship". In regard to censorship specifically, I doubt the US is much stricter than other advanced countries and what can be published online is fairly close to what can be published on paper. But of course the US does surveillance big-time, and the Reporters without Borders link says that's why RwoB doesn't like US policies. (This is leaving aside whether users in other countries are any less surveilled by the NSA than users in the US, and also leaving aside that Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand participate in Echelon with the US.)
It would take some work, but I think a better presentation of the data would be to separate censorship and surveillance into two categories which would be displayed separately. It might also be worth bringing out the RwoB list explicitly, explaining what RwoB doesn't like about each country on its enemies list. DWorley ( talk) 17:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
i feel that these topics deserve their own separate articles, according to the way information is portrayed in this article, one is led to believe saudi arabia and iran are in the same catagory as the UK and the United states.
Midgetman433 ( talk) 18:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Can Portugal really be classified as having little or no censorship? Despite having an article in its Constitution that bans all forms of censorhip, Portugal blocks at least two high-profile sites: The Pirate Bay and Uber. Shouldn't that be classified as selective censorship? -- 141.92.129.45 ( talk) 10:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
In an 18 December 2014 announcement the OpenNet Initiative said that: [1]
After a decade of collaboration in the study and documentation of Internet filtering and control mechanisms around the world, the OpenNet Initiative partners will no longer carry out research under the ONI banner. The [ONI] website, including all reports and data, will be maintained indefinitely to allow continued public access to our entire archive of published work and data.
The ONI website also stated that ONI's summarized global Internet filtering data will be updated in early 2015. [2]
The ONI data and reports together with the "Enemies of the Internet" and "Countries under Surveillance lists" from Reporters Without Borders make up the primary sources upon which the classifications in this article are based. The RWB Enemies list wasn't updated in 2015 and the Under Surveillance list hasn't been updated since 2012.
Because ONI will be updating their summarized global Internet filtering data and the RWB Enemies list was updated in 2014, we have a bit of time to figure out what we want to do about maintaining the classifications in this article on into the future. But it would be good to start developing a plan now. Suggestions?
The article currently says:
One possibility for the future is to de-emphasize the OpenNet Initiative (ONI) and Reporters Without Borders (RWB) since their reports are going away and to rely more heavily on the Freedom on the Net report from Freedom House. The FOTN report covers 65 countries. Would this be a good approach?
Are there other sources that classify or rank Internet censorship and/or surviellance that we should be considering?
Restriction to the opening of public wifi have been partially removed 3 years ago. -- 191.5.87.72 ( talk) 11:34, 20 January 2016
Using Freedom House to evaluate worldwide internet censorship and surveillance is a bad idea, especially now that the page includes surveillance. If it's 86% funded by grants from the U.S. government and its page contains controversies where its stance was seemingly influenced by US politics, as well as analyses, it should not be used as a source. In fact, any government-aligned organization should probably not be used to evaluate governments. That would be like quoting Al Jazeera on Qatari freedom. Prinsgezinde ( talk) 14:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
It is misleading to combine internet censorship and surveillance together when they are two completely separate things. For example in the United States there is almost zero censorship enforced by the state. Whereas in some countries both censorship and surveillance are extensive. This paints a misleading picture about the situation. Xanikk999 ( talk) 23:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I think combing them together when ranking nations is very misleading. My reasoning is that these two topics are not mutually inclusive. You can have high levels of survellience without very little censorship such as in the United States.
Combining them together paints a very misleading picture when referring to the map. Most people would not be under the impression that the United States and the United Kingdom have the same level of internet censorship and surveillance as North Korea and Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanikk999 ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)