IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v112y2018i03p621-636_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Sudden Censorship Can Increase Access to Information

Author

Listed:
  • HOBBS, WILLIAM R.
  • ROBERTS, MARGARET E.

Abstract

Conventional wisdom assumes that increased censorship will strictly decrease access to information. We delineate circumstances when increases in censorship expand access to information for a substantial subset of the population. When governments suddenly impose censorship on previously uncensored information, citizens accustomed to acquiring this information will be incentivized to learn methods of censorship evasion. These evasion tools provide continued access to the newly blocked information—and also extend users’ ability to access information that has long been censored. We illustrate this phenomenon using millions of individual-level actions of social media users in China before and after the block of Instagram. We show that the block inspired millions of Chinese users to acquire virtual private networks, and that these users subsequently joined censored websites like Twitter and Facebook. Despite initially being apolitical, these new users began browsing blocked political pages on Wikipedia, following Chinese political activists on Twitter, and discussing highly politicized topics such as opposition protests in Hong Kong.

Suggested Citation

  • Hobbs, William R. & Roberts, Margaret E., 2018. "How Sudden Censorship Can Increase Access to Information," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(3), pages 621-636, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:112:y:2018:i:03:p:621-636_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055418000084/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Francesco Capozza & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Studying Information Acquisition in the Field: A Practical Guide and Review," CEBI working paper series 21-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    2. Rafael Jimenez-Duran, 2021. "The Economics of Content Moderation: Theory and Experimental Evidence from Hate Speech on Twitter," Natural Field Experiments 00754, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. David H. Kreitmeir & Paul A. Raschky, 2023. "The Unintended Consequences of Censoring Digital Technology - Evidence from Italy's ChatGPT Ban," SoDa Laboratories Working Paper Series 2023-01, Monash University, SoDa Laboratories.
    4. Ekaterina Zhuravskaya & Maria Petrova & Ruben Enikolopov, 2020. "Political Effects of the Internet and Social Media," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 415-438, August.
    5. Ahçi, Mustafa, 2023. "Essays on corporate disclosures, innovation, and investments," Other publications TiSEM 0dddb5f7-17e1-41ba-97da-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Austin Horng-En Wang & Mei-chun Lee & Min-Hsuan Wu & Puma Shen, 2020. "Influencing overseas Chinese by tweets: text-images as the key tactic of Chinese propaganda," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 469-486, November.
    7. Yongjun Zhang & Hao Lin & Yi Wang & Xinguang Fan, 2023. "Sinophobia was popular in Chinese language communities on Twitter during the early COVID-19 pandemic," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    8. Davide Cantoni & David Y Yang & Noam Yuchtman & Y Jane Zhang, 2019. "Protests as Strategic Games: Experimental Evidence from Hong Kong's Antiauthoritarian Movement," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 1021-1077.
    9. Leonardo Bursztyn & Davide Cantoni & David Y. Yang & Noam Yuchtman & Y. Jane Zhang, 2021. "Persistent Political Engagement: Social Interactions and the Dynamics of Protest Movements," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 3(2), pages 233-250, June.
    10. David Karpa & Torben Klarl & Michael Rochlitz, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence, Surveillance, and Big Data," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2108, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    11. Jennifer Pan & Margaret E. Roberts, 2020. "Censorship’s Effect on Incidental Exposure to Information: Evidence From Wikipedia," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    12. Francesco Capozza & Ingar K. Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2022. "Recent Advances in Studies of News Consumption," CESifo Working Paper Series 10021, CESifo.
    13. Christian Gläßel & Katrin Paula, 2020. "Sometimes Less Is More: Censorship, News Falsification, and Disapproval in 1989 East Germany," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(3), pages 682-698, July.
    14. Levi Boxell & Zachary Steinert-Threlkeld, 2019. "Taxing dissent: The impact of a social media tax in Uganda," Papers 1909.04107, arXiv.org.
    15. José Gustavo Góngora-Goloubintseff, 2020. "The Falklands/Malvinas war taken to the Wikipedia realm: a multimodal discourse analysis of cross-lingual violations of the Neutral Point of View," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, December.
    16. Philipp M. Lutscher & Nils B. Weidmann & Margaret E. Roberts & Mattijs Jonker & Alistair King & Alberto Dainotti, 2020. "At Home and Abroad: The Use of Denial-of-service Attacks during Elections in Nondemocratic Regimes," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 64(2-3), pages 373-401, February.
    17. repec:ehl:lserod:100316 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Kun Heo & Antoine Zerbini, 2024. "Segment and rule: Modern censorship in authoritarian regimes," Discussion Papers 2024-04, Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP).
    19. Boxell, Levi & Steinert-Threlkeld, Zachary, 2022. "Taxing dissent: The impact of a social media tax in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    20. Jun Liu & Jingyi Zhao, 2021. "More than plain text: Censorship deletion in the Chinese social media," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(1), pages 18-31, January.
    21. David Karpa & Torben Klarl & Michael Rochlitz, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence, Surveillance, and Big Data," Papers 2111.00992, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:112:y:2018:i:03:p:621-636_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.