Is remote measurement a better assessment of internet censorship than expert analysis? Analyzing tradeoffs for international donors and advocacy organizations of current data and methodologies

IF 1.8 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Data & policy Pub Date : 2023-03-02 DOI:10.1017/dap.2023.5
Terry Fletcher, Andria Hayes-Birchler
{"title":"Is remote measurement a better assessment of internet censorship than expert analysis? Analyzing tradeoffs for international donors and advocacy organizations of current data and methodologies","authors":"Terry Fletcher, Andria Hayes-Birchler","doi":"10.1017/dap.2023.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Donor organizations and multilaterals require ways to measure progress toward the goals of creating an open internet, and condition assistance on recipient governments maintaining access to information online. Because the internet is increasingly becoming a leading tool for exchanging information, authoritarian governments around the world often seek methods to restrict citizens’ access. Two of the most common methods for restricting the internet are shutting down internet access entirely and filtering specific content. We conduct a systematic literature review of articles on the measurement of internet censorship and find that little work has been done comparing the tradeoffs of using different methods to measure censorship on a global scale. We compare the tradeoffs between measuring these phenomena using expert analysis (as measured by Freedom House and V-Dem) and remote measurement with manual oversight (as measured by Access Now and the OpenNet Initiative [ONI]) for donor organizations that want to incentivize and measure good internet governance. We find that remote measurement with manual oversight is less likely to include false positives, and therefore may be more preferable for donor organizations that value verifiability. We also find that expert analysis is less likely to include false negatives, particularly for very repressive regimes in the Middle East and Central Asia and therefore these data may be preferable for advocacy organizations that want to ensure very repressive regimes are not able to avoid accountability, or organizations working primarily in these areas.","PeriodicalId":93427,"journal":{"name":"Data & policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Data & policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2023.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Donor organizations and multilaterals require ways to measure progress toward the goals of creating an open internet, and condition assistance on recipient governments maintaining access to information online. Because the internet is increasingly becoming a leading tool for exchanging information, authoritarian governments around the world often seek methods to restrict citizens’ access. Two of the most common methods for restricting the internet are shutting down internet access entirely and filtering specific content. We conduct a systematic literature review of articles on the measurement of internet censorship and find that little work has been done comparing the tradeoffs of using different methods to measure censorship on a global scale. We compare the tradeoffs between measuring these phenomena using expert analysis (as measured by Freedom House and V-Dem) and remote measurement with manual oversight (as measured by Access Now and the OpenNet Initiative [ONI]) for donor organizations that want to incentivize and measure good internet governance. We find that remote measurement with manual oversight is less likely to include false positives, and therefore may be more preferable for donor organizations that value verifiability. We also find that expert analysis is less likely to include false negatives, particularly for very repressive regimes in the Middle East and Central Asia and therefore these data may be preferable for advocacy organizations that want to ensure very repressive regimes are not able to avoid accountability, or organizations working primarily in these areas.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与专家分析相比,远程测量是对互联网审查的更好评估吗?分析国际捐助者和宣传组织对当前数据和方法的权衡
摘要捐助组织和多边组织需要衡量建立开放互联网目标的进展情况,并以受援国政府保持在线信息获取为条件提供援助。由于互联网越来越成为交换信息的主要工具,世界各地的独裁政府经常寻求限制公民访问的方法。限制互联网的两种最常见的方法是完全关闭互联网访问和过滤特定内容。我们对有关衡量互联网审查的文章进行了系统的文献综述,发现很少有人对在全球范围内使用不同方法衡量审查的权衡进行比较。我们比较了使用专家分析测量这些现象(由自由之家和V-Dem测量)和远程测量与手动监督(由Access Now和OpenNet Initiative[ONI]测量)之间的权衡,供希望激励和衡量良好互联网治理的捐助组织使用。我们发现,人工监督的远程测量不太可能包括假阳性,因此对于重视可验证性的捐助组织来说可能更可取。我们还发现,专家分析不太可能包括假阴性,特别是对于中东和中亚非常专制的政权,因此,这些数据可能更适合那些希望确保非常专制的政府无法逃避问责的倡导组织,或主要在这些领域工作的组织。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Determinants for university students’ location data sharing with public institutions during COVID-19: The Italian case Bus Rapid Transit: End of trend in Latin America? Accelerating and enhancing the generation of socioeconomic data to inform forced displacement policy and response “That is why users do not understand the maps we make for them”: Cartographic gaps between experts and domestic workers and the Right to the City Analysis of spatial–temporal validation patterns in Fortaleza’s public transport systems: a data mining approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1