United States
  • Internet rights: free speech and press. Weak privacy protection.
  • ISP safe harbor: DMCA safe harbors for copyright claims. Section 230 immunity for defamation and non-IP claims, but Trump Executive Order attempts to limit.
  • Net neutrality: None. FCC repealed protection for net neutrality in 2018.
China
  • The Great Firewall of China blocks people's access to many websites, e.g., Facebook, Google.
  • Government engages in extensive censorship especially related to political organizing or protests.
  • Foreign social media apps are banned.  Users must use real names on social media. 
Australia
  • Internet rights: No bill of rights. Some censorship of content. Personal data protected.
  • ISP safe harbors: limited to Internet access providers, does not apply to other services.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Mexico
  • Internet rights: free speech, press, privacy in Constitution. Article 6 guarantees Internet access, though not implemented.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: law to protect net neutrality in 2014.
Canada
  • Internet rights: free speech, press in Constitution. Privacy law.  Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: for conduits, caching, hosting, search engines from copyright liability.  "Notice-and-notice" process.
  • Net neutrality: CRTC policy sets rules for Internet traffic management practices.
Brazil
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Internet bill of rights (Marco Civil da Internet) enacted.
  • ISP safe harbor: horizontal approach requires court order before takedown of infringing content.
  • Net neutrality: Marco Civil prohibits prohibits content-based discrimination of Internet traffic. 
  • Crowdsourced Internet bill of rights.
Russia
  • Russia has exercised tighter control online, including blocking websites. 
  • 2014 "Blogger law" requires bloggers with 3,000 daily users to register with government.
  • Websites collecting personal data of Russians must be stored in servers in Russia by 2016.
Chile
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law.
  • ISP safe harbor: 2014 law requires court review before takedown of content.
  • Net neutrality: law prohibits "arbitrarily distinguish[ing] content ... based on the source or ownership thereof.”
Argentina
  • Internet rights: Constitution protects Internet speech. Data privacy law. Policy for universal access. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none. ISPs have been subject to liability and injunctions. 
  • Net neutrality: Congress considering a proposal on net neutrality. 
Colombia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, personal data protected. 
  • ISP safe harbor: free trade agreement with U.S. yet to be implemented. 
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection; bill proposed in 2011.
Peru
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, personal data protected. 
  • ISP safe harbor: free trade agreement with U.S. yet to be implemented. 
  • Net neutrality: legal protection since 2012.
Venezuela
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, personal data right in Constitution. Government blocking of websites.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Ecuador
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, data privacy in Constitution. Data privacy bill in 2015.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: legal protection for net neutrality.
Bolivia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Paraguay
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, personal data protected. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Uruguay
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, personal data protected. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Guyana
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Suriname
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
French Guiana
  • Internet rights: follows French law, which protects speech, privacy, data privacy.
  • ISP safe harbor: follows French law, which protects conduits, caching, hosting.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Falkland Islands
Belize
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Costa Rica
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Access a fundamental right. Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: for conduits, caching, hosting, locator tools. Notice and takedown process.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection. 
El Salvador
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Guatemala
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Honduras
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, habeas data in Constitution. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Nicaragua
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Panama
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, data privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Austria
  • Internet rights: free speech, data privacy protections. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Belgium
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Bulgaria
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Croatia
  • Internet rights: free speech, data privacy protections. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Cyprus
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.  Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Czech Republic
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Statute for personal data. Hate speech outlawed.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach protects ISP conduits, caching, hosting.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Denmark
  • Internet rights: free speech, data privacy protections. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Estonia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, hosting, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Finland
  • Internet right: right of guaranteed access; free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute for personal data. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
France
  • Internet rights: free speech, strong privacy protections; hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality :2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Germany
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute for personal data. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage. ISPs duties go beyond take down.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Hungary
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Ireland
  • Internet rights: free speech, data privacy protections. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Italy
  • Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech, privacy. Statutory protection for personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach. AgCom agency has new takedown process, including fast track.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Latvia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, hosting, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Lithuania
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, hosting, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Malta
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, hosting, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality: no protection.
United Kingdom
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in ECHR and Human Rights Act. Personal data protection. ISPs filter pornography, adult materials.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal safe harbors for conduits, caching, storage.  
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Netherlands
  • Internet rights: free speech, press, privacy in Constitution. Personal data protected. 
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: law protects net neutrality since 2011. 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Poland
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute for personal data. Hate speech outlawed.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach protects ISP conduits, caching, hosting.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Portugal
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, data privacy.  Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Romania
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Slovakia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Slovenia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Spain
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, hosting, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Sweden
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, and passive hosting.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Iceland
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor:
  • Net neutrality: no legal requirement.
Norway
  • Internet rights: free speech in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: Obligated to apply EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, and passive hosting.
  • Net neutrality: voluntary industry guidelines have been adopted.
Albania
  • Internet rights: free speech in Constitution, but media self censors. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: for access, caching, passive storage, and information locator tools.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection
Belarus
  • Internet rights: Constitution recognizes free speech, privacy but restrictions of speech in practice  Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Bosnia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some impairment. Personal data law.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: none.  
Macedonia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.  Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Philippines
  • Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech, privacy. Data privacy protected. Cybercrime law curtails rights.
  • ISP safe harbors: Section 30 of the Electronic Commerce Act provides safe harbor.
  • Net neutrality: not protected. 
Moldova
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.  Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Serbia
  • Internet rights: free speech in Constitution, but media self censors. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: for access, caching, passive storage, and information locator tools.
  • Net neutrality: No legal protection
Switzerland
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no protection, but voluntary industry code.
Turkey
  • In 2014, then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ordered blocking of Twitter and YouTube in Turkey.
  • Journalists and people critical of government frequently arrested. 
  • 2014 law gives government power to block sites without court order; requires retention of user records for 2 years. 
Ukraine
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.  Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: broad immunity without notice and takedown requirement.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Egypt
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Japan
  • Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech.  Data privacy protected by statute. 
  • ISP safe harbor: horizontal safe harbor for ISPs from copyright, defamation, and other liability; notice-and-takedown approach.  
  • Net neutrality: recognized by industry guidelines, subject to exceptions.
Algeria
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restricted in practice.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Angola
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.  Data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Botswana
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.  Data privacy bill. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Burundi
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Speech restricted. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Cameroon
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.  No data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Cape Verde
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, and data privacy in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Central African Republic
  • Internet rights: new Constitution passed in Dec. 2015. Free speech and privacy protected.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Chad
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.  Data privacy bill. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Congo
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Greenland

<ul>
<li>Internet rights: free speech, data&nbsp;privacy protections.&nbsp;Hate speech proscribed.</li>
<li>ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.</li>
<li>Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.</li>
</ul>
 

Djibouti
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Speech restricted. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Egypt
Eritrea
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Censorship. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Ethiopia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restricted in practice.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Gabon
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Equatorial Guinea
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Government censorship and restriction of Internet. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Gambia
  • Internet rights: free speech, press, privacy in Constitution, but restrictions in practice. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Ghana
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Guinea
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Guinea Bissau
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Kenya
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.  Data privacy bill. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Lesotho
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Speech restricted. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Liberia
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Libya
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in interim Constitution, but restricted in practice.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Madagascar
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some monitoring of websites. Personal data protection.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Malawi
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.  Data privacy bill. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Mali
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some self-censorship.  Data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Mauritania
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Mauritius
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Some restrictions. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Morocco
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, and data privacy, but speech sometimes restricted in practice.  
  • ISP safe harbor: based on removal of the allegedly infringing material.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Mozambique
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions of speech.  No data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Namibia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. No data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Niger
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.  Data privacy bill. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Nigeria
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Reunion
  • Overseas territory of France following French law
Rwanda
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Speech restricted and website blocking. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
South Africa
  • Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech, free press, privacy, human dignity. Personal data protection law.
  • ISP safe harbor: for conduit, caching, hosting, locator tools. Notice-and-takedown.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Sao Tome and Principe
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Senegal
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Seychelles
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data protection not yet in effect.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Sierra Leone
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Somalia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restrictions of speech in practice.  No data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Cote d'Ivoire
  • Internet rights: free speech in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Sudan
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restricted in practice.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Swaziland
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Speech restricted. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Tanzania
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some monitoring of websites. Personal data protection.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Togo
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Tunisia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Uganda
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Speech restricted. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Zambia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions and monitoring. No data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Zimbabwe
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions of speech and online monitoring.  No data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Burkina Faso
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some self-censorship.  Data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Saudi Arabia
  • Internet rights: Censorship of content, blocking of websites. Lack of privacy protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Israel
  • Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but restrictions imposed by government.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: legal protection.
Iraq
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restrictions of speech for morality. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Iran
  • Iran blacklists thousands of disapproved websites and blocked more than 5 million sites.
  • Extensive government surveillance of Internet content.
  • Bloggers can be jailed for posting disapproved content. 
Jordan
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy recognized but restricted in practice.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Kuwait

<ul>
<li>Internet rights: free&nbsp;speech in Constitution, but restricted in practice. No right of privacy.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li>
<li>ISP safe harbor: none.</li>
<li>Net neutrality: no legal protection.</li>
</ul>
 

Lebanon
  • Internet rights: free speech in Constitution, but restricted in practice. No privacy right.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Lebanon
Lebanon
Lebanon
Oman
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy recognzied, but censorship, website blocking, and Internet monitoring in practice. 
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Oman
Qatar
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restricted in practice.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Syria
  • Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but restrictions and website blocking.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Syria
United Arab Emirates
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy rights restricted by government.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Yemen
  • Internet rights: Censorship of content. Lack of privacy protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Afghanistan
  • Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but restrictions to stifle criticism of government.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Armenia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy and data privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
  • Internet rights: privacy, free speech but some restrictions and censorship.
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Bhutan
Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. But government censorship and monitoring.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Indonesia
  • Internet rights: Censorship of pornography, defamation, blasphemy. Some personal data protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: not protected. 
India
  • Government engages in selective blocking of websites and accounts on social media.
  • The government's Central Monitoring System (CMS) surveils phone calls, emails, Internet content. 
  • Net neutrality: Department of Telecommunications report favors net neutrality. 
India
Kazakhstan
  • Internet rights: Censorship of content, blocking of websites. Lack of privacy protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
North Korea
North Korea
South Korea
  • Internet rights: Free speech right subject to exception. Government censors political criticisms, defamation, pornography. Personal data protected. 
  • ISP safe harbor: OSP safe harbors are more limited than US DMCA  
  • Net neutrality: KCC Guidelines allow reasonable traffic discrimination
Kyrgyz Republic
  • Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, personal data protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Lao People's Democratic Republic
  • Internet rights: speech right, no general privacy right, and limited personal data protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection. 
Malaysia
  • Internet rights: free speech in Constitution, but censorship in practice. Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: no safe harbor, although scope of secondary liability for ISPs unclear.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Maldives
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Mongolia
  • Internet rights: privacy, free speech but broad defamation law and ban on 774 phrases.
  • ISP safe harbors: limited; Article 25 of Copyright Act imposes substantial duties on ISPs.
  • Net neutrality: TBD.
Myanmar
  • Internet rights: privacy, free speech but broad defamation law used to stifle speech.
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Nepal
  • Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but no personal data protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: draft guidelines in 2018.
Pakistan
  • Pakistan has increased censorship and restrictions on access to the web for religious, political, and other reasons.
  • Government engages in blocking of websites.  YouTube has been blocked since 2012. 
Sri Lanka
  • Internet rights: free speech, but no privacy.  Temporary Internet blocking in state of emergency in 2018. 
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Sri Lanka
Taiwan
  • Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech, privacy of correspondence, personal data privacy.
  • ISP safe harbors: for access, caching, passive storage, and locator tools.
  • Net neutrality: not protected. 
Taiwan
Tajikistan
  • Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but restrictions in practice.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Thailand
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. But government censorship, monitoring, website blocking. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Timor Leste
  • Internet rights: privacy and free speech.  No personal data protection. 
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Timor Leste
Turkmenistan
  • Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but restrictions and website blocking.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Uzbekistan
  • Internet rights: Censorship of content, blocking of websites. Lack of privacy protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Vietnam
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Data privacy. Website blocking.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Cuba
  • Cuba restricts Internet access and requires people to apply for a permit to get full "international" access to the Internet, Decree Law 209 (1996).
  • Most Cubans do not qualify for full Internet access.  Only 5% of the population had Internet access in 2012. 
  • Cuba blocks websites, especially ones critical of the government, and deploys propaganda on social media.
Dominica
Dominican Republic
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Grenada
Haiti
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Trinidad and Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago
Fiji
Fiji
French Polynesia
French Polynesia
New Caledonia
New Zealand
  • Internet rights: protection for free speech, privacy, and personal data.
  • ISP safe harbors: for access, caching, and hosting. 
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Solomon Islands
Vanuatu
Angola
Benin
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Benin
Madagascar
Papua New Guinea
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy rights, but concerns with Cybercrime Code.
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: not protected. 
Democratic Republic of Congo
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Comoros
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data protection.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Georgia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.  Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: None.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Greece
  • Internet rights: free speech, data privacy protections, Internet access. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Singapore
  • Internet rights: free speech but not privacy right. Personal data protection. Speech and privacy restrictions.
  • ISP safe harbors: 4 safe harbors similar to U.S. DMCA safe harbors.
  • Net neutrality: law requires.
Montenegro
Hong Kong
Luxembourg
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Latvia
Montenegro
Hong Kong
Singapore
Luxembourg
Luxembourg
Cambodia
  • Internet rights: privacy, free speech but speech critical of government is restricted.
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.

Compare Countries

Select any filter and click on Apply to see results

Select any filter and click on Apply to see results

Embed this map

Large Image (800px)

Medium Image (500px)

Small Image (200px)

Home

Latest News

08/07/2020

Late on Thursday, Aug. 6, 2020, Donald Trump issued two executive orders, one against TikTok and the other against Tencent's messaging platform WeChat.  Claiming a "national emergency," Trump invoked the authority of the "President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code." For a good summary of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, read Anupam Chander's recent Washington Post op-ed and this NPR interview with Elizabeth Goitein.

The Executive Orders prohibits, "to the exent permitted under applicable law," any transactions with "ByteDance Ltd. (a.k.a. Zìjié Tiàodòng), Beijing, China, or its subsidiaries, in which any such company has any interest" (ByteDance owns TikTok) and with WeChat in 45 days.  The Secretary of Commerce is to identify the transactions prohibited by the order 45 days after the date of the order.  The Excecutive Order also prohibits "[a]ny transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate the prohibition." To justify this emergency action, Trump claimed the following charges on Bytedance and TikTok:

I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that additional steps must be taken to deal with the national emergency with respect to the information and communications technology and services supply chain declared in Executive Order 13873 of May 15, 2019 (Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain).  Specifically, the spread in the United States of mobile applications developed and owned by companies in the People’s Republic of China (China) continues to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.  At this time, action must be taken to address the threat posed by one mobile application in particular, TikTok.

TikTok, a video-sharing mobile application owned by the Chinese company ByteDance Ltd., has reportedly been downloaded over 175 million times in the United States and over one billion times globally.  TikTok automatically captures vast swaths of information from its users, including Internet and other network activity information such as location data and browsing and search histories.  This data collection threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information — potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage.

TikTok also reportedly censors content that the Chinese Communist Party deems politically sensitive, such as content concerning protests in Hong Kong and China’s treatment of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities.  This mobile application may also be used for disinformation campaigns that benefit the Chinese Communist Party, such as when TikTok videos spread debunked conspiracy theories about the origins of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus.

These risks are real.  The Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, and the United States Armed Forces have already banned the use of TikTok on Federal Government phones.  The Government of India recently banned the use of TikTok and other Chinese mobile applications throughout the country; in a statement, India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology asserted that they were “stealing and surreptitiously transmitting users’ data in an unauthorized manner to servers which have locations outside India.”  American companies and organizations have begun banning TikTok on their devices.  The United States must take aggressive action against the owners of TikTok to protect our national security.

Trump made similar charges against WeChat:

WeChat, a messaging, social media, and electronic payment application owned by the Chinese company Tencent Holdings Ltd., reportedly has over one billion users worldwide, including users in the United States.  Like TikTok, WeChat automatically captures vast swaths of information from its users.  This data collection threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information.  In addition, the application captures the personal and proprietary information of Chinese nationals visiting the United States, thereby allowing the Chinese Communist Party a mechanism for keeping tabs on Chinese citizens who may be enjoying the benefits of a free society for the first time in their lives.  For example, in March 2019, a researcher reportedly discovered a Chinese database containing billions of WeChat messages sent from users in not only China but also the United States, Taiwan, South Korea, and Australia.  WeChat, like TikTok, also reportedly censors content that the Chinese Communist Party deems politically sensitive and may also be used for disinformation campaigns that benefit the Chinese Communist Party.  These risks have led other countries, including Australia and India, to begin restricting or banning the use of WeChat.  The United States must take aggressive action against the owner of WeChat to protect our national security.

In a company blog post, TikTok said: "We will pursue all remedies available to us in order to ensure that the rule of law is not discarded and that our company and our users are treated fairly – if not by the Administration, then by the US courts." TikTok also called upon its 100 users in the U.S. to make their voices heard in the White House: "We want the 100 million Americans who love our platform because it is your home for expression, entertainment, and connection to know: TikTok has never, and will never, waver in our commitment to you. We prioritize your safety, security, and the trust of our community – always. As TikTok users, creators, partners, and family, you have the right to express your opinions to your elected representatives, including the White House. You have the right to be heard."

In a report by CNN, a Tencent spokesperson said it it reviewing the Executive Order. There is some confusion on the scope of the Executive Order, which names any transactions with "Tencent Holdings" (not just WeChat). Tencent is a massive global conglomerate with many products and services (e.g., videogames by Riot Games, such as "League of Legends"), not just WeChat. A White House representative later confirmed to the LA Times that the order only applies to WeChat, not all of Tencent.

Meanwhile, according to the Wall St. Journal, bills have passed in the House and Senate that, if enacted, would ban federal employees from using TikTok on government devices. To pass, Congress would have to agree on the same bill.

08/06/2020

On August 5, 2020, as reported by the Wall St. Journal, Facebook removed a post from Donald Trump that contained a video of an interview he did with Fox News in which he reportedly said that children are "almost immune from this disease." Trump also said COVID-19 “is going to go away,” and that “schools should open” because “this it will go away like things go away.” A Facebook spokesperson explained to the Verge: "This video includes false claims that a group of people is immune from COVID-19 which is a violation of our policies around harmful COVID misinformation." 

Twitter temporarily suspended the @TeamTrump campaign account from tweeting because of the same content. "The @TeamTrump Tweet you referenced is in violation of the Twitter Rules on COVID-19 misinformation,” Twitter spokesperson Aly Pavela said in a statement to TechCrunch. “The account owner will be required to remove the Tweet before they can Tweet again.” The Trump campaign resumed tweeting so it appears it complied and removed the tweet. 

Neither Facebook nor Twitter provided much explanation of their decisions on their platforms, at least based on our search. They likely interpreted "almost immune from this disease" as misleading because children of every age can be infected by coronavirus and suffer adverse effects, including death (e.g., 6 year old, 9 year old, and 11 year old). In Florida, 23,170 minors tested positive for coronavirus by July 2020, for example. The CDC just published a study on the spread of coronavirus among children at summer camp in Georgia and found extensive infection spread among the children: 

These findings demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 spread efficiently in a youth-centric overnight setting, resulting in high attack rates among persons in all age groups, despite efforts by camp officials to implement most recommended strategies to prevent transmission. Asymptomatic infection was common and potentially contributed to undetected transmission, as has been previously reported (1–4). This investigation adds to the body of evidence demonstrating that children of all ages are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection (1–3) and, contrary to early reports (5,6), might play an important role in transmission (7,8). 

Experts around the world are conducting studies to learn more about how COVID-19 affects children.  The Smithsonian Magazine compiles a summary of the some of these studies and is well worth reading.  One of the studies from the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine did examine the hypothesis: "Decreased susceptibility could result from immune cross-protection from other coronaviruses9,10,11, or from non-specific protection resulting from recent infection by other respiratory viruses12, which children experience more frequently than adults." But the study noted: "Direct evidence for decreased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 in children has been mixed, but if true could result in lower transmission in the population overall." This inquiry was undertaken because, thus far, children have reported fewer positive tests than adults. According to the Mayo Clinic Staff: "Children of all ages can become ill with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). But most kids who are infected typically don't become as sick as adults and some might not show any symptoms at all." Moreover, a study from researchers in Berlin found that children "carried the same viral load, a signal of infectiousness." The Smithsonian Magazine article underscores that experts believe more data and studies are needed to understand how COVID-19 affects children.

Speaking of the Facebook removal, Courtney Parella, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, said: "The President was stating a fact that children are less susceptible to the coronavirus. Another day, another display of Silicon Valley's flagrant bias against this President, where the rules are only enforced in one direction. Social media companies are not the arbiters of truth."

08/05/2020

 

On June 30, 2020, China engaged in a secret process to enact a new national security law that would significantly impact the way Hong Kong uses the Internet, as reported by Forbes. Hong Kong’s chief executive, Carrie Lam, was not allowed to see a draft of the law before its passage. China has justified the law as a way to safeguard Hong Kong's economic development and political stability. The law prevents and punishes any act that would put China’s national security at risk, including secession, terrorism, subversion, and collusion with foreign forces. The vagueness of the four crimes means that they may be used broadly to silence any dissent or protesters in Hong Kong, including in content posted on social media, against China’s rule, according to NPR. Margaret Lewis, a law professor at Seton Hall Law School and a specialist on Hong Kong and Taiwan told NPR, “What we do know is that Beijing now has an efficient, official tool for silencing critics who step foot in Hong Kong." 

The national security law is written very broadly. The law penalizes even offenses committed “outside the region by a person who is not a permanent resident of the region.” The text of the law seems to purport extraterritorial application to any person in the world who writes something in violation of the law, including Americans. If someone violates this new national security law, they would be facing a penalty of a life sentence in prison, according to Forbes. What’s more concerning is the new law authorizes China to set up a "National Security Committee" to oversee the investigation and prosecution of any violations without any judicial review. Michael C. Davis, a fellow at the Wilson Center, told NPR: “With this law being superior to all local law and the Basic Law (Hong Kong's constitution) itself, there is no avenue to challenge the vague definitions of the four crimes in the law as violating basic rights.” 

Logistically, cases classified as “complex” or “serious” will be tried in mainland Chinese courts by Chinese judges, according to NPR. This would push aside Hong Kong’s judicial system, waive trial by jury, and deny public access to the trial if the case contains sensitive information. One fear is that people arrested in Hong Kong would be extradited to China to face trial. 

Foreign tech firms fear that Beijing’s law will severely control or restrict the Internet that have remarkably shaped and helped Hong Kong’s growth, as Forbes reports. Just within hours of the law being passed, two opposition political parties in Hong Kong announced they were voluntarily disbanding. People in Hong Kong have been deleting their social media accounts in fear that their speech could be considered “subversive” or “secessionist”. While Twitter has refused to comment on Hong Kong users dropping off of the social platform, there have been multiple public sign-offs from some top pro-democracy figures in Hong Kong. The BBC reported on July 30, 2020 that four students in Hong Kong have been arrested for "inciting secession" on social media. 

 

Some people in Hong Kong may try to protect their identity on social media accounts by using VPNs. In comparison to June 2020, there’s been a 321% spike in VPN’s (virtual private networks) in July. A VPN conceals a user’s online activity.  One Hong Kong protester told Fortune that he downloaded a VPN after the announcement of the new law because he was “really afraid that the [Chinese Communist Party] will get my personal information.” Police have already made a handful of arrests including one man who displayed a flag advocating for Hong Kong’s independence from China. Yet, platforms like LIHKG (similar to the online messaging board – Reddit), are still active with protesters expressing their anti-government criticisms.

--written by Alfa Alemayehu

 

 

08/03/2020

Facebook announced it will create teams to study if there is any racial bias within Facebook's and Instagram's algorithms that negatively impact the experience of its minority users experience within the social media platforms. The Equity and Inclusion team at Instagram and the and Inclusivity Product Team for Facebook will tackle a large issue that Facebook has largely ignored in the past. Facebook is under intense scrutiny.  Since July 2020, Facebook has faced a massive advertising boycott called Stop Hate for Profit from over five hundred companies such as Coca-Cola, Disney, and Unilever. Facebook has been criticized for a lack of initiative in handling hate speech and attempts to sow racial discord on their platforms, including to suppress Black voters. An independent audit by civil rights experts found the prevalence of hate speech targeting Blacks, Jews, and Muslims on Facebook "especially acute." “The racial justice movement is a moment of real significance for our company,” said Vishal Shah, Instagram’s product director told the Wall Street Journal. “Any bias in our systems and policies runs counter to providing a platform for everyone to express themselves.” 

The new research teams will cover what has been was blind spot for Facebook. ln 2019, Facebook employees found that a computer automated moderation algorithm on Instagram was 50 percent more likely to suspend the accounts of Black users compared to white users, according to the Wall Street Journal. This finding was supported by user complaints to the company. After employees reported these findings, they were sworn to secrecy and no further research on the algorithm was done by Facebook. Ultimately, the algorithm was changed, but it was not tested any further for racial bias. Facebook officially stated that that research was stopped because an improper methodology was being applied at the time. As reported by NBC News, employees of Facebook leaked that the automated moderation algorithm automatically detects and deletes hate-speech against white users more effectively then it moderates hate speech against black users.  

Facebook's announcement of these teams to study racial bias in these social media platforms are only in the infancy stage. The Instagram Equity and Inclusion team does not have a team leader announced yet. The Inclusivity Product Team will supposedly work closely with a group of Black users and cultural experts to make effective changes. However, Facebook employees previously working on this issue have stated anonymously that they were ignored and discouraged to continue their work. The culture of Facebook as a company and previous inaction to address racial issues have raised skepticism of Facebook's recent initiatives. Time will tell if Facebook is serious about the problem.  

--written by Sean Liu  

 

08/02/2020

On July 21, 2020, Twitter suspended 7,000 accounts spreading QAnon conspiracy theories. In a tweet about the banning of these QAnon accounts, Twitter reiterated their commitment to taking "strong enforcement actions on behavior that has the potential to lead to offline harm." Twitter identified the QAnon accounts' violations of its community standards against "multi-account[s]," "coordinating abuse around individual victims," and "evad[ing] a previous suspension." In addition to the permanent suspensions, Twitter also felt it necessary to ban content and accounts "associated with Qanon" from the Trends and recommendations on Twitter, as well as to avoid "highlighting this activity in search and conversations." Further, Twitter will block "URLs associated with QAnon from being shared on Twitter." 

These actions by Twitter are a bold step in what has been a highly contentious area concerning the role of social media platforms in moderating hateful or harmful content. Some critics suggested that Twitter's QAnon decision lacked notice and transparency.  Other critics contended that Twitter's actions were too little to stop the "omnisconpiracy theory" that QAnon has become across multiple platforms.

So what exactly is QAnon? CNN describes the origins of QAnon, which began as a single conspiracy theory: QAnon "claim dozens of politicians and A-list celebrities work in tandem with governments around the globe to engage in child sex abuse. Followers also believe there is a 'deep state' effort to annihilate President Donald Trump."  Forbes similarly describes: "Followers of the far-right QAnon conspiracy believe a “deep state” of federal bureaucrats, Democratic politicians and Hollywood celebrities are plotting against President Trump and his supporters while also running an international sex-trafficking ring." In 2019, an internal FBI memo reportedly identified QAnon as a domestic terrorism threat.

Followers of QAnon are also active on Facebook, Reddit, and YouTube. The New York Times reported that Facebook was considering takeingsteps to limit the reach QAnon content had on its platform. Facebook is coordinating with Twitter and other platforms in considering its decision; an announcement is expected in the next month. Facebook has long been criticized for its response, or lack of response, to disinformation being spread on its platform. Facebook is now the subject of a boycott, Stop Hate for Profit, calling for a stop to advertising until steps are taken to halt the spread of disinformation on the social media juggernaut. Facebook continues to allow political ads using these conspiracies on its site. Forbes reports that although Facebook has seemingly tried to take steps to remove pages containing conspiracy theories, a number of pages still remain. Since 2019, Facebook has allowed 144 ads promoting QAnon on its platform, according to Media Matters. Facebook has continuously provided a platform for extremist content; it even allowed white nationalist content until officially banning it in March 2019.

Twitter's crack down on QAnon is a step in the right direction, but it signals how little companies like Twitter and Facebook have done to stop disinformation and pernicious conspiracy theories in the past. As conspiracy theories can undermine effective public health campaigns to stop the spread of the coronavirus and foreign interference can undermine elections, social media companies appear to be playing a game of catch-up.  Social media companies would be well-served by devoting even greater resources to the problem, with more staff and clearer articulation of its policies and enforcement procedures. In the era of holding platforms and individuals accountable for actions that spread hate, social media companies now appear to realize that they have greater responsibilities for what happens on their platforms.

--written by Bisola Oni

About

The Free Internet Project is a nonprofit whose mission is to provide the public with information about the latest legal and technological efforts to protect Internet freedoms around the world.

Founded in 2014, TFIP provides a user-friendly resource for the public to follow and comment on the latest bills, decisions, constitutional amendments, and technologies to protect the “free and open Internet." The Project is based on the belief that the Internet is an amazing tool for sharing knowledge, and that people around the world can learn from and share in the efforts to protect Internet freedoms in other countries.

If you have a tip or would like to contact us, write us:  thefreeinternetproject[at]gmail.com

 

Privacy policy