User:Francg/expub/thesis/1stchapter-thesis-draft: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
Internet censorship is prohibited to governments by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, both of which guarantee everyone's right of freedom of online speech. | Internet censorship is prohibited to governments by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, both of which guarantee everyone's right of freedom of online speech. | ||
However, these rights are increasingly becoming more vulnerable to state authorities, centralized platforms and institutionalized environments. In current times of political crisis data becomes an evident weapon, both to quickly inform and censor information, depending on the interests behind it. That is to say, information is not free and open, most importantly, it is censored, manipulated and revised, yet this is invisible often. | However, these rights are increasingly becoming more vulnerable to state authorities, centralized platforms and institutionalized environments. In current times of political crisis, data becomes an evident weapon, both to quickly inform and censor information, depending on the interests behind it. That is to say, information is not free and open, most importantly, it is censored, manipulated and revised, yet this is invisible often. | ||
This was clearly demonstrated during the referendum period in Catalonia, declared illegal by Spanish government. This case study shows the urgency to increase transparency of information controls, and the necessity to | This was clearly demonstrated during the referendum period in Catalonia, declared illegal by the Spanish government. This particular case study shows the urgency to increase transparency of information controls, and the necessity to investigate a social issue that defines the possibility of a hypothetic democratic framework. Having this emerging thread as a model for analysis, the thesis will be contextualized surrounding the events of this period, providing documentation on the methods both used to censor and make information visible and public. It will reflect critically on the necessity to provide evidence through an ethical collection of knowledge, denouncing the growing normalization of data control by state authorities, and hoping to trigger a debate between users. | ||
Is it ethical to appropriate the Internet through state | Is it ethical to appropriate the Internet through state use of power? What are the implications of information technologies and news media in a democratic society? Those perceptions from information media, provide the audiences with a mental map of the social and political world beyond their own immediate experience. Domain organizations generally block websites when harming content is hosted. Therefore, how justified are the measures to seize and shutdown material used to organize a referendum? What will be the Internet's strategy against future attacks against net neutrality? | ||
This research will then present a range of perspectives and arguments, seeking to share evidence, reorienting the practice and study of media critique, experiment with software while discussing the radical shift towards inequality in an age of online centralization. | |||
Before we can dive into the topic of online censorship in relation to the Catalan referendum on October 1st, it is important to first get a clearer idea about the history of the events. | Before we can dive into the topic of online censorship in relation to the Catalan referendum on October 1st, it is important to first get a clearer idea about the history of the events. | ||
| Line 42: | Line 43: | ||
<br>Chapter 1: Centralization | <br>Chapter 1: Centralization | ||
Spain is currently experiencing a big political crisis | Spain is currently experiencing a big political crisis with the region of Catalonia. In recent years, the Catalan independence movement has strengthened, leading Catalonia to seek more autonomy from Spain in various occasions. This time, a referendum for independence was set to be held on the 1 October 2017. Even though nowadays the Catalan society remains quite divided on this question, the referendum became widely supported by those in defense of freedom of expression. | ||
To ensure that voters could participate even if their appointed voting stations were shut down by the police, the Catalan government announced the “open census” in the morning of the referendum (1-O) | The referendum was declared illegal by the Spanish government, who attempted to prevent the vote from happening: state authorities censored hundreds of websites, forcing Internet providers and domain organizations to shut them down by means of DNS tampering, HTTP blocking and .cat domain seizure. Police forces occupied telecommunication buildings, raided newsprints, seizure paper ballots and used body armor with extreme violence against pacific protesters during the 1 October. About 16.000 police and military forces were deployed in Catalonia. They also arrested elected Catalonian politicians on charges of sedition. However, despite all the attempts to block the process, alternative servers to count votes were deployed and the referendum (1-O) was held. To ensure that voters could participate even if their appointed voting stations were shut down by the police, the Catalan government announced the “open census” in the morning of the referendum (1-O), trough which voters were offered the opportunity to choose any voting station in the country. In any case, according to Catalan officials, 90% of more than 2.2 million ballots were cast in favor of independence. In the end, the mass media could no longer ignore this topic and it quickly expanded online. | ||
This created a huge amount of online reactions from media institutions, human rights organizations and users across social networks, who manifested their denounce. However, media polarization and faked news contributed to intoxicate the debate even more, causing uncertainty between users. At the same time, news were constantly rewritten and revised, updating information almost on the fly, often quicker rather than accurately. | |||
This whole scenario of censored websites, quickly changing data, inaccurate and polarized information... where does it leads to? Software experimentation can lead to prototypes that integrate into a substantial system, where information is streamed, more visible and accessible without restrictions, empowering the user to become aware of the nature of online information. | This whole scenario of censored websites, quickly changing data, inaccurate and polarized information... where does it leads to? Software experimentation can lead to prototypes that integrate into a substantial system, where information is streamed, more visible and accessible without restrictions, empowering the user to become aware of the nature of online information. | ||
Revision as of 23:34, 15 January 2018
(intro + chapter1)
1 Intro
2 Topic Contextualization
3 Centralization
3.2.1 Article 155
3.2.2 US Internet law
3.2.3 Twitter 1.0 vs 2.0
3.2.4 RSS vs API
4. Neutrality
4.1 Hacking for equality
4.2 The Internet Battle
5. Experimentation (relation to project)
5.1 Tools for Decentralization
6. Conclusion
Intro:
Internet censorship is prohibited to governments by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, both of which guarantee everyone's right of freedom of online speech.
However, these rights are increasingly becoming more vulnerable to state authorities, centralized platforms and institutionalized environments. In current times of political crisis, data becomes an evident weapon, both to quickly inform and censor information, depending on the interests behind it. That is to say, information is not free and open, most importantly, it is censored, manipulated and revised, yet this is invisible often.
This was clearly demonstrated during the referendum period in Catalonia, declared illegal by the Spanish government. This particular case study shows the urgency to increase transparency of information controls, and the necessity to investigate a social issue that defines the possibility of a hypothetic democratic framework. Having this emerging thread as a model for analysis, the thesis will be contextualized surrounding the events of this period, providing documentation on the methods both used to censor and make information visible and public. It will reflect critically on the necessity to provide evidence through an ethical collection of knowledge, denouncing the growing normalization of data control by state authorities, and hoping to trigger a debate between users.
Is it ethical to appropriate the Internet through state use of power? What are the implications of information technologies and news media in a democratic society? Those perceptions from information media, provide the audiences with a mental map of the social and political world beyond their own immediate experience. Domain organizations generally block websites when harming content is hosted. Therefore, how justified are the measures to seize and shutdown material used to organize a referendum? What will be the Internet's strategy against future attacks against net neutrality?
This research will then present a range of perspectives and arguments, seeking to share evidence, reorienting the practice and study of media critique, experiment with software while discussing the radical shift towards inequality in an age of online centralization.
Before we can dive into the topic of online censorship in relation to the Catalan referendum on October 1st, it is important to first get a clearer idea about the history of the events.
Chapter 1: Centralization
Spain is currently experiencing a big political crisis with the region of Catalonia. In recent years, the Catalan independence movement has strengthened, leading Catalonia to seek more autonomy from Spain in various occasions. This time, a referendum for independence was set to be held on the 1 October 2017. Even though nowadays the Catalan society remains quite divided on this question, the referendum became widely supported by those in defense of freedom of expression.
The referendum was declared illegal by the Spanish government, who attempted to prevent the vote from happening: state authorities censored hundreds of websites, forcing Internet providers and domain organizations to shut them down by means of DNS tampering, HTTP blocking and .cat domain seizure. Police forces occupied telecommunication buildings, raided newsprints, seizure paper ballots and used body armor with extreme violence against pacific protesters during the 1 October. About 16.000 police and military forces were deployed in Catalonia. They also arrested elected Catalonian politicians on charges of sedition. However, despite all the attempts to block the process, alternative servers to count votes were deployed and the referendum (1-O) was held. To ensure that voters could participate even if their appointed voting stations were shut down by the police, the Catalan government announced the “open census” in the morning of the referendum (1-O), trough which voters were offered the opportunity to choose any voting station in the country. In any case, according to Catalan officials, 90% of more than 2.2 million ballots were cast in favor of independence. In the end, the mass media could no longer ignore this topic and it quickly expanded online.
This created a huge amount of online reactions from media institutions, human rights organizations and users across social networks, who manifested their denounce. However, media polarization and faked news contributed to intoxicate the debate even more, causing uncertainty between users. At the same time, news were constantly rewritten and revised, updating information almost on the fly, often quicker rather than accurately.
This whole scenario of censored websites, quickly changing data, inaccurate and polarized information... where does it leads to? Software experimentation can lead to prototypes that integrate into a substantial system, where information is streamed, more visible and accessible without restrictions, empowering the user to become aware of the nature of online information.
Due to the sensitivity of the current political situation, I want to participate providing an insight into the nature of online information through an empirical and ethical collection of data, aiming to support public debate, while showcasing a handpicked selection of data evidences, aiming to position the reader into this particular sociopolitical context.
To be more concrete, the thesis will work hand in hand with the project, using RSS readers as main engines for news compilation, supporting an ethical collection of media content during the ongoing conflict. Data observation will be useful to offer more transparency to the happening facts, preserving reviewed published material, reinforce the importance of accurate information, strengthen research, combat misinformation and to embrace more democratic results online. Moreover, emphasizing a continuous monitored observation of news media, will possibly draw some attention to both the audience experiencing information, and news media changing it on the fly. This could also help reaching an audience that can actively engage on an online-based discussion about this problematic.
What information is included, collected and stored? Who has access to data? How protected is it? What is the political position of the project itself? etc