Social Media

Increasing collateral damage is an effective way of fighting censorship and expanding internet freedom. If we want to keep it that way, we ought to know its limitations

This week: Antitrust is having a moment; Washington and Berlin fight over Huawei; Facebook faces a criminal investigation; and the Navy is not keeping up with Chinese hackers. 

This week: Russia unplugs itself from the internet; a new AI might be cause for concern; Trump's big AI plan is here; and Moldova becomes the latest arena for stopping disinformation. 

This week: a SOTU non-event; Facebook in Germany; Huawei war; WhatsApp warns Indian politicians; and China's APT10 strikes again. 

This week: UAE spying; DNI releases top threats; Huawei indicted; and Tehran toys with crypto. 

Valentin Weber is a DPhil candidate in cybersecurity and a research affiliate with the Centre for Technology and Global Affairs at the University of Oxford. He is also an Open Technology Fund (OTF) Senior Fellow in Information Controls at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University. You can follow him @weberv_ Censorship in China is often described as a cat and mouse game. As soon as netizens come up with a term to express their frustrations or call for collective action the term will be censored. So was the letter n, which netizens used to refer to Xi Jinping being in office the n-th amount of time, or qiou, a neologism which means dirt-poor and ugly, and refers to being an underdog in a society that praises consumerism and status symbols. The censorship game has been going back and forth for years and the government seems to have retained the upper hand in it. In an influential report dubbed Collateral Freedom, the Open Internet Tools Project found that Chinese censors are most aggressive when censorship incurs low economic damage and less willing to act when the perceived economic damage is greater. This principle was exploited by the censorship-circumvention technique of domain fronting, in which a technical quirk of websites hosted on the Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud platform (and similar services by Google) was used to trick the censorship infrastructure into allowing blocked traffic. These circumvention-enabling sites were resistant to blocking, as banning one AWS-hosted webpage would result in other websites hosted on the Amazon cloud being similarly blocked. Recently, citing a variety of cybersecurity and legal hazards created by domain fronting, both Amazon and Google disabled domain fronting, removing a widely-used approach for users to bypass censorship. However, despite the recent setback in domain fronting, what if there were other ways of ensuring high levels of collateral damage when blocking services? What if there were terms that are incredibly hard to censor, because the potential economic damage would be too great? The concept is the following: take an economically important term, such as Mate 20X, ZTE or even Lenovo’s advertising slogan Let the World Connect (让世界一起联想). Lenovo – Let the World Connect may indicate that the company connects the world, but it may also be a call for collective action. Tencent’s slogan Connecting People for a Greater Future (连接你我共生未来) may just as well indicate that people ought to go out and organize themselves in order to create a greater future. A similar technique was adopted in Brazil’s 2013 protests, where protesters took Johnnie Walker’s slogan The giant has awoken to the streets. Those words build on national pride and are inherently emotional, since advertising builds on emotions to increase customer consumption. A powerful advertising slogan that induces people to buy products, can just as well be used to organize collective action and bring people to the streets. While major companies do the branding and distribution of the slogans, citizens can engage in a subvertising effort (a combination of subversion and advertising used by the AdBusters organization, for instance). Luckily all slogans will already be not only present in online fora, but also in the streets through the sheer presence of company advertising posters and material. While a company can just come up with another advertising slogan, in case it is appropriated by protesters, it is harder to change a company’s name that can be rebranded to serve calls for collective action. Lenovo (联想) means to associate, or connect cognitively in Chinese. Similarly, Huawei’s first character (华) refers to China or Chinese and the second character (为) to action or achievement. There are some limitations to this proposition. Firstly, this is not a censorship circumvention approach – it will not provide citizens with access to foreign websites that are shielded by the Great Firewall. Websites will still be inaccessible. Secondly, citizens who intend to rebrand words or slogans will have to sway public perception that Connecting People for a Greater Future applies to social movements and not only to the technological possibilities of a phone. Given that the letter n was rebranded successfully from a simple letter into a one with a politically charged connotation, however, then Tencent slogans can gain a new meaning as well. The crucial difference being that censoring the letter n (in isolation) was acceptable to censors, censoring Connecting People for a Greater Future will be costlier. Even if individual slogans are banned at some point, it will have caused some economic costs associated with the blocking, as well as advanced dissemination of calls for collective action. Thirdly, taking brands or advertising slogans as vehicles for political movement may encounter another challenge. It may drown in an overflow of similar information. What happens when you google Google? Nothing exciting. It is hard to find any targeted information on the company. It must be just as difficult to find anything political on Connecting People for a Greater Future when one searches it on Baidu. Therefore, the proliferation of these meanings will have to rely on people communicating with each other on RenRen or Weibo. In this way, the slogans and words will be shared just as the letter n or qiou were on a person to person basis. Thereby collective-action-information can flow, regardless of the vast amounts of similar information online. This approach can reintroduce the collateral effects of censorship as applied to social messaging, which has already proven to be effective in reducing censorship. By deliberately designing communication strategies to exploit collateral effects, the cat is unable to distinguish between the mouse and its own tail, and will choose not to bite either. 

The United States and the United Kingdom have issued a joint statement stating that they will deny visas to Nigerians involved in rigging or violence in the national elections scheduled for February 16. In addition to monitoring polling stations and outbreaks of violence, they will also be monitoring social media for incidents of hate speech and incitement to violence. The joint statement should be welcomed. The threat of visa denial or revocation can have a real impact on Nigerian elites, who greatly value the ability to travel to the United States and the United Kingdom. Indeed, the ability to travel outside Nigeria is often an elite marker. It is assumed in Nigeria that certain elites park substantial sums overseas, especially in London and New York. In an additional statement issued last week, the British government also pointed out that incitement to violence could mean that it would block access to money or other property that perpetrators have in the United Kingdom.  The decision to use social media posts as grounds for visa denial is particularly intriguing. Although visa restrictions for most Nigerians on social media likely will not mean much—many lack the resources to travel—it could make some elites think twice about encouraging violence or trafficking in hate speech.

Online misinformation is a problem for democracies worldwide, but we should worry about how misinformation will change democracies in the developing world.

This week: GDPR hits Google with record fine; the French unveil new cyber doctrine; WhatsApp fights misinformation; and the government shutdown degrades cyber defenses.

The need to review potentially harmful digital content in real time is greater than ever. Here’s why India’s legions of content moderators are ready for the task.

After protesters used social media apps to topple dictators during the Arab Spring, governments in Africa are adopting a new tactic to curtail their influence: taxing social media usage.

2018 was the year that a handful of countries got serious about protecting users' data. 

This week: the shutdown = bad cyber; the U.S. deals a blow to China's chip dreams; another Huawei executive arrested; and Facebook struggles to comply with Vietnam's new cybersecurity law.