Question

Please provide an alternative analysis (response)-- not just a "well done" phrase or "I agree." Consider points of agreement, disagreement, assumptions, and value judgments. Must be 100-200 words

Dating back to 2012, according to Express (2020), 50% of the world's top 500 visited websites are censored in Iran. These include sites such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. Additionally, mobile messaging applications such as Viber and Telegram are also censored. As Tavani (2016) stated, censorship is defined as "restrict or limit access to an expression, portion of an expression, or category of expression, which has been made public by its author, based on the belief that it will be a bad thing if people access the content of that expression"(Tavani, 247) Although the internet access, speed, and bandwidth in Iran have increased significantly over the years, there is still fear from the government that mass protests can erupt at any time, thus why the heavy restriction on many social media platforms. In 2009, the mass demonstration that erupted was “orchestrated and organized with the help of social media networks.”(Redigolo, 2020) Additionally, during these demonstrations and protests, “the government blocked internet access from mobile networks and blocked access to Instagram and Telegram to try to obstruct demonstrators.”(Redigolo, 2020) However, although these social media platforms are restricted to the public, that does not apply for government officials. As most of us have seen in recent news, after the strike on Qassim Suleimani, Commander on the Iranian Force, the Iran foreign minister, Javad Zarif, Tweeted, "We do not seek an escalation of the war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression," in response to the U.S. This poses a question- how is the public restricted to use Twitter and government officials are not? A spokesman of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran based in Paris stated that “What is very telling is that while ordinary Iranians are banned from accessing these applications, the regime's leaders and senior officials including Ali Khamenei, Hassan Rouhani, and Javad Zarif use these applications freely to disseminate lies and propaganda.” Here, we can clearly see the disparity in internet governance.

The main stakeholders of this issue are of course the people (public) of Iran. These are the people that use the internet on a day to day basis for both personal and business use. Consequently, business owners, investors, suppliers of good and service are also considered stakeholders. If any of these entities are running and/or investing in an online business, they are also affected by the restriction. Now because we live in a country where we can freely use the intent to access any websites and social media platforms, we may view the situation in Iran as inconvenient and even troubling. However, Iranians might not see the situation in that lens. Freedom of internet is not their norm. As Dr. Pablo Molina stated, “there are very few laws that tell us how the internet should work. These laws are different from country to country.”

As of now, many websites and social media networks are still censored and restricted for public use, and it is mainly due to political reasons. According to the internet censorship map, “Iran also blocks VPNs (only government-approved ones are permitted which renders them almost useless) but doesn’t completely ban torrenting. Pornography is also banned but social media is permitted to some extent. News media is heavily censored.”(Bischoff, 2020) Being a native of a developing country where the political tension was tense, as I mentioned in a previous discussion post, I have personally experienced the internet being cut off and social media being restricted. Fortunately, it was never to the extent of Iran, but it is for similar political reasons. Although it can be argued that the internet may have caused the political distress among these nations, I do not agree with the restriction and/or cut off of the internet, as I too believe that the internet "gives voice to diverse social, economic, and cultural groups, to members of society not frequently heard in the public sphere [and] empower the traditionally disempowered."(Tavani, 277) In both Iran and Ethiopia as Laura Denardis states in her address to the Carnegie Council, “repressive governments want to suppress the media, they want to censor information. They have to turn now to technical infrastructure to do that.” And in Ethiopia and I would also assume in Iran as well, these infrastructures are monopolized and “is increasingly becoming a proxy for broader political struggles and control of the content.”(Denardis, 2014)

Answer 1

Disagreement:

I disagree with this. As the government of Iran had blocked internet access and restricted social media platform to the public, that doesn't apply for government officials. The rules must be imposed on every person whether public or government. As like government people of the country also have need of internet to run their business as well as for their personal use.

Agreement:

If we think from the government's point of view, it is beneficial for the public only. To maintain peace in the country and to protect the country from mass protests they have blocked internet.

Value judgement:

Apart from agreement and disagreement, we can conclude that the Iran government has blocked the internet for the public, not for government officials. This action is taken only for the welfare of the public. Government officials need internet access as they have work-related to the country's welfare which is more important than any business or work of an individual.

Assumption:

To protect the country from mass protests Iran government should block the internet for the whole country. Then there will be no differences between the government and the public. This may reduce disparity in internet governance.