Skip to main content

The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism Across the Globe

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Censorship from Plato to Social Media

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((LGTS,volume 61))

Abstract

By 2022, it seems that few people today would regard audiovisual rules or internet regulation as “The Law of the Horse”. As David Bromel puts it: “the early years of the internet were a great party – wild and dangerous. But now the party is over, and all the guests have to help clean up.” What remains with us today of the basic ideas of cyberlibertarianism in decline is the inherently liberating nature of technology and the internet, and their ongoing—seemingly hopeless—struggle for the decentralisation of communication, where everyone (privileged and disadvantaged alike) can have the space for communication that they deserve. The practical impossibility of cyberpaternalism—or, to put it more simply, of regulating the Internet within the geographical and legal borders of the states themselves—seems remote, but not impossible. We have seen, and continue to see, the steps taken by China’s cybersovereignty announced from 2015, and then by Russia, which joined in the late 2010s.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Sect. 4.2.

  2. 2.

    Bromel (2022), p. 217.

  3. 3.

    Of course, the movement still has its representatives: perhaps the best known to the general public is Lawrence Lessig. Cyberlibertarianism is also discussed in one of the talks he gave at Politics and Prose bookstore (Washington, D.C.) in 2019 on his book They Don’t Represent Us: https://youtu.be/9oA78WgIoO0?t=2311/.

  4. 4.

    It is worth comparing this with the characteristics of the alternative type of traditional media, community media, which shows that the internet could have had an excellent early opportunity to play the role of a truly more democratic public space. Gosztonyi (2014), pp. 31–32; Hammer (2003), pp. 121–122; Lublinski et al. (2014), pp. 16–17.

  5. 5.

    Kravets (2017); Velocci (2016); Jackson (2011).

  6. 6.

    In fact, some countries have already recognized internet access as such, like Estonia, France, Finland, and Costa Rica. Barata and Richter (2023), p. 7.

  7. 7.

    UNHRC (2016); Cf. The UN Human Rights Council “calls upon all States to promote and facilitate access to the Internet and international cooperation aimed at the development of media and information and communications facilities in all countries”. UNHRC (2012), p. 3.

  8. 8.

    On this point see also Szoszkiewicz (2020), pp. 49–62.

  9. 9.

    UNHRC (2020), p. 25.

  10. 10.

    EFJ – IPI – ECPMF (2020).

  11. 11.

    Ibid., p. 19.

  12. 12.

    Collman (2021).

  13. 13.

    It should be pointed out that Insider was unable to confirm the information from two independent sources.

  14. 14.

    On the process leading to the adoption of the law and the detailed rules of the law, see Tölgyesi (2020), pp. 113–132; Human Rights Watch (2020).

  15. 15.

    Федеральный закон от 01.05.2019 № 90-ФЗ “О внесении изменений в Федеральный закон “О связи” и Федеральный закон “Об информации, информационных технологиях и о защите информации”.

  16. 16.

    For more details on the technology, see Fuchs (2012).

  17. 17.

    This is compounded by the fact that, like in China, VPN use is subject to heavy and dissuasive fines. Meduza (2018).

  18. 18.

    Ma (2019).

  19. 19.

    Human Rights Watch (2019).

  20. 20.

    RSF (2021), pp. 10–20.

  21. 21.

    Federal Law No. 149-FZ.

  22. 22.

    Richter (2021), p. 16.

  23. 23.

    RSF (2021), pp. 9–18.

  24. 24.

    See details in Sect. 10.2.6.

  25. 25.

    Richter (2021), p. 10.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., p. 11.

  27. 27.

    https://reestr.rublacklist.net/ru/.

  28. 28.

    Worldometer (2022).

  29. 29.

    Fassihi and Engelbrecht (2022).

  30. 30.

    Reuters (2022a).

  31. 31.

    Reuters (2022b).

  32. 32.

    https://twitter.com/netblocks/status/1572651793355603972.

  33. 33.

    Moss (2022).

  34. 34.

    The European Union does not recognise the results of the elections in Belarus: they were neither free nor fair. European Council (2020).

  35. 35.

    Alongside sites from providers such as Walmart, Samsung or Disney, which was probably intended to make the process look like a general technical problem. Gilbert (2020).

  36. 36.

    Tóth (2021).

  37. 37.

    Belsat (2021).

  38. 38.

    Wani (2021).

  39. 39.

    Campbell (2021).

  40. 40.

    Gambrell (2021).

  41. 41.

    Marsh and Culliford (2021).

  42. 42.

    Jackson (2021).

  43. 43.

    CNA (2021).

  44. 44.

    Digital Watch (2021b).

  45. 45.

    Agbo (2021).

  46. 46.

    Amnesty International (2021).

  47. 47.

    Carpenter (2021).

  48. 48.

    Digital Watch (2021a).

  49. 49.

    AccessNow (2021).

  50. 50.

    Abdolhoseinzadeh (2022).

  51. 51.

    AccessNow (2021).

  52. 52.

    Belson (2022).

  53. 53.

    The NGO Witness Media Lab has produced a full guide on how to document internet shutdowns with offline techniques. http://lab.witness.org/projects/internet-shutdowns/.

  54. 54.

    Kelemen (2022).

  55. 55.

    AccessNow (2022), p. 3.

  56. 56.

    UNHRC (2020), p. 28.

  57. 57.

    Bennett and Naim (2015). Cf. “Restrict the export of censorship and surveillance technology.” FH (2021), p. 25.

  58. 58.

    Bischoff (2023).

  59. 59.

    Cerf (2022), p. 51.

  60. 60.

    Lendvai (2023).

  61. 61.

    Woodhams and Migliano (2021).

  62. 62.

    Skelton (2023).

  63. 63.

    Simon and Mahoney (2022), p. 10.

  64. 64.

    BBC News (2021).

  65. 65.

    FH (2022), p. 5.

  66. 66.

    Zandt (2021).

  67. 67.

    Simon and Mahoney (2022), p. 155.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gosztonyi, G. (2023). The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism Across the Globe. In: Censorship from Plato to Social Media. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 61. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46529-1_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46529-1_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-46528-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-46529-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics