The Unfreedom Monitor is a project to analyze, document, and report on the growing use of digital communications technology to advance authoritarian governance around the world.
Authoritarian and dictatorial regimes have long had a complicated relationship with media and communications technologies, using them to advance their own goals and propaganda. At the same time, they restrict access for some to technology and information, helping them to shape and warp reality, conceal abuses, and maintain power. As more and more people use the internet and other technologies these dynamics only become stronger. This means that, despite its goals for good, the internet is sometimes used by authoritarian-minded governments as a tool for deception, propaganda and control.
In 2010, Global Voices’ co-founder Rebecca MacKinnon coined the term “networked authoritarianism” to define how China manipulates the internet to maintain power. The approach allows for limited debate around some issues but controls the platforms and frames the narratives up for discussion. Technology facilitates surveillance and social controls, and information, discussion, and activism with the potential to threaten power is forbidden.
Global Voices has been tracking and documenting this phenomenon in many countries through our Advox project, since 2007. We have noticed a few trends. Over time, threats to online expression transform from threats to individuals to threats to systems, affecting entire populations. Internet controls and mass surveillance become an accepted part of governing. States have become sophisticated in their ability to detect, repress and target organizing, expression and activism. Many states are combining targeted denial of information services with powerful surveillance and the ability to “flood the zone” with false and misleading information, using automated technologies and networks of supporters. These practices and more come together to strengthen existing authoritarian powers and threaten the stability of long-standing and fledgling democracies.
Today, what has become known as digital authoritarianism is evident in all kinds of governments. The internet is dominated by advertising technology that tracks and segments users for commercial gain. Governments, states, and political parties, often in collaboration with corporations, harness this surveillance power, and a future with more advanced machine learning, facial recognition, and artificial intelligence for “predictive” analysis suggests that state capabilities for control will likely increase. Combine this with the ubiquitous CCTV capture, the face that we carry our communications devices everywhere, and the normalization of the idea that your devices should listen to you, and you end up with pervasive surveillance.
These are the reasons we created The Unfreedom Monitor. We want to understand what motivates, shapes, and influences digital authoritarianism around the world, no matter the style of government or political system. Starting with 11 pilot countries, we are seeking to develop a method for naming digital authoritarianism, so we can help people of good conscience tame it.
The Unfreedom Monitor
Authoritarian regimes have long had a complicated relationship with media and communications technologies. The Unfreedom Monitor is a Global Voices Advox research initiative examining the growing phenomenon of networked or digital authoritarianism.
Stories about Unfreedom Monitor
Pro-military people are urging the military authorities to take action against those who are pro-democracy, calling for detention, imprisonment, property seizure, revoking citizenship and travel documents — even the execution of political prisoners and rebels.
Bukele's presidency has attacked and discredited independent journalists who expose corruption in his government, putting them at risk of harassment and violence.
In addition to the obvious humanitarian consequences that internet shutdowns in a war zone bring, infrastructural content moderation is a potent and dangerous approach to spreading disinformation.
Citizens' belief that the infringement of human and digital rights does not concern them has created fertile ground for the emergence of pervasive surveillance in Zimbabwe.
A lack of data protection and privacy legislation leaves room for abuse in Tanzania.
There is an urgent need to regulate the global trade in surveillance technology with the inclusion of human rights safeguards.
The reactions and subtle usage of language and labelling by and of different actors in the Indian ecosystem symbolise the undercurrents in Indian society.
While the Data Protection Act offers in safeguarding the privacy of personal data, it raises serious concerns in key areas, such as security breaches and the independence of the Data Protection Commission.
Internet shutdowns are not a surprising new phenomenon within authoritarian regimes. In fact, there is a considerable tendency for authoritarian regimes to restrict internet access, though at different levels.
Alex Saab’s case has become one of the most relevant incidents to understand Maduro’s propaganda machine in Venezuela, and the effect it has on social and political events.
In Tanzania, freedom of expression is a constitutional right of every citizen that has however been undermined by the continuous passing and enacting of a series of repressive regulations over the years.
"Most politicians resort to the tactic of hiring an advertising agency to campaign, but the troll center is part of the deal."
Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, and Facebook have become complicit in aiding the state to silence independent voices in Turkey, even at times when content is not political.
Granting a football federation rights to censor content in the absence of a court order is yet another sign of a narrowing environment for freedoms.
The use of Pegasus spyware against journalists represents a serious threat to freedom of the press, digital rights, and a key challenge to investigate the configuration of a digital authoritarianism in El Salvador.
Join us on YouTube live on November 24 for a discussion exploring the convergence of Russia’s rapidly strengthening censorship infrastructure, and its use of disinformation both internally and externally.
Eight months of ‘fakes’ and ‘discreditation’: How the Kremlin’s new laws against anti-war dissent are applied online
Censorship and political repression are not new to Russia, but, in 2022, they reached new heights. Alongside new digital tools, new legislation allows the state to expedite and industrialise the repression of dissidents.
Initial media reports suggested WhatsApp's decision to withhold the launch was part of an agreement with the Supreme Electoral Court (TSE), with whom Bolsonaro has been at loggerheads due to his groundless remarks about fraud in the electoral system.
The tussle between social media giants, governments, and citizens raise questions about agency and power. Each stakeholder has tried to push back on the other to further their interests.
Whether under the table or by legal means, organisations fear that the government will try to control telecommunications, especially during massive protests.