On Friday, the Turkish government began using throttling, a method that renders websites unusable by slowing them down, to block major social media apps including Twitter, WhatsApp, Youtube, and Facebook. The Turkish government has a history of suppressing internet freedoms and the circulation of information. Earlier this week, the government blocked internet for users in the southeast part of Turkey. In April 2015, the government lifted a ban on Twitter, originally due to a photo of a Turkish prosecutor held at gunpoint by far-left militants being circulated on the site, only when Twitter agreed to remove all offending images and shut down accounts. These actions are not unheard of, as various countries around the world have banned social media apps. For example, Brazil once suspended WhatsApp when the company did not turn in a user’s encrypted data.  [More from Social Barrel]

On Tuesday, internet security authorities in Shanghai, China declared they would be overseeing Damnu. Damnu, which means “barrage” or “bullet screen,” refers to real-time comments on online videos. All websites will be required to filter out words that violate laws, and must assign staff to review all online comments in real time. 

This is one part of the country’s aim to regulate Internet. Along with the Shanghai police shutting down and checking more than a million live broadcasting hosts, China has made spreading online rumors a criminal offense. China has also allowed online chatroom conversations to be accepted as legal evidence in courts.

David Bandurski, researcher for the University of Hong Kong’s China Media Project, has referred to the declaration as a “cat and mouse game.” He believes authorities want complete control of online information, but also seek to have increased internet activity to boost the economy.  Despite China’s effort to regulate internet activity and enhance cybersecurity, censoring live streaming content may prove to be difficult. [More from South China Morning Post]

South Africa's National Assembly is considering the Films and Publications Amendment Bill [text], which is intended to amend the Films and Publications Act of 1996. The bill has sparked great controversy in the Internet community. Many critics call it the "Internet censorship bill."  

What are the fears of censorship?  Part of the controversy is the section establishing an independent rating system for "digital films, digital games and certain publications." Critics argue that the provision is overly broad and could apply to every creator of videos on YouTube in South Africa, even user-generated content--thereby subjecting them to register as a distributor with the Film and Publication Board (FPB's).  Section 24A treats failure to register as a potential criminal offense subject to fine or imprisonment ("(1) Any person who knowingly distributes or exhibits in public a film or game without first having been registered with the Board as a distributor or exhibitor of films or games shall be guilty of an offence and liable, upon conviction, to a fine not exceeding R150 000 or to imprisonment for a period.").

In addition, any distributor under the FPB's jurisdiction would be required to maintain controls to prevent individuals under 18 years of age from accessing material classified as "X18," including the following verification:

• the distributor shall keep, solely for his or her private records, a register of all instances where access was granted to a user, whose name, address and verifiable age must be noted in the register kept for that purpose.
• the register referred to in paragraph (e) must be kept for one year from the date when distribution took place.

Critics argue this registry could chill adults from accessing legal content and constitute an invasion of privacy.  According to new reports, the Democratic Alliance, "MultiChoice, eNCA, eTV, Right2Know, Media Monitoring Africa, the SOS Coalition, the South African National Editors Forum, the National Association of Broadcasters, Google and the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC)" have all opposed the bill.   

The United Nations Human Rights Council passed a nonbinding resolution reaffirming its view that Internet access is a basic human right.  The resolution "calls upon all States to address security concerns on the Internet in accordance with their international human rights obligations to ensure protection of freedom of expression, freedom of association, privacy and other human rights online, including through national democratic, transparent institutions, based on the rule of law, in a way that ensures freedom and security on the Internet so that it can continue to be a vibrant force that generates economic, social and cultural development."

The resolution also "condemns unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online in violation of international human rights law and calls on all States to refrain from and cease such measures."  [English text]