Internet freedom is eroding and democracy is gradually debilitating due to technology’s pervasive impact. The spread of disinformation and propaganda through online channels has tainted public discourse or has made public discourse incredulous. The unregulated collection and hoarding of personal data has undermined conventional concepts of privacy.
Concurrently, several nations are gravitating towards digital authoritarianism by adapting a model akin to China’s that has tenets such as extensive content censorship and implementation of automated surveillance systems as their buttress. At a glance, this may sound like a description of a Margaret Atwood dystopian novel, but sadly it is the reality that we are a part of. Eyes and ears were fictional tools that were used in her novels to indicate that we were constantly under a panoptic gaze, but now it seems like what she wrote was an accurate prediction of where the world was heading. While the internet can be used to threaten autocratic regimes, it can also disrupt democracies.
What is digital authoritarianism?
Digital authoritarianism entails the utilisation of digital and communication technologies to engage in activities that curtail the free dissemination of information, suppress political opposition, surveil citizens, violate individual privacy, undermine human rights and democratic values, and enable malicious influence campaigns, both domestically and globally. In a broader context, it facilitates the propagation of illiberal ideologies in digital and physical realms. These practices are not exclusive to authoritarian regimes within their borders; they also extend their impact to societies which have self-proclaimed themselves as liberal, open, and democratic. This influence can manifest through malicious digital actions originating from authoritarian nations or via the adoption of illiberal policies by democratic societies for their own perceived benefits.
A country that practises this concept is China. Identified globally as a vanguard of digital authoritarianism, within the borders of the country, it is patent that there exists an overbearing use of digital censorship, state-sanctioned surveillance and oppressive measures to support the Chinese Communist Party’s hold on power. On a global scale, it has been either looked up to or looked down upon as the primary example of digital authoritarianism.
As outlined in the National Bureau of Asian Research’s 2022 report, titled “China’s Digital Ambitions: A Global Strategy to Supplant the Liberal Order,” China is executing a well-planned, long-term strategy to metastasize its control and influence over the global digital sphere.
While China is quite vocal about being a disciple of digital authoritarianism, it is not the only nation that follows it. Instead, it is employed to different extents across a wide spectrum of government systems, including countries like the United States of America. Even in nations with high levels of freedom and openness, there exist vulnerabilities to activities associated with authoritarianism. For instance, platforms like TikTok have demonstrated how foreign governments can leverage open, globalised commercial spaces to gather data, monitor US citizens, and utilise algorithmic techniques to shape information environments. These tactics facilitate the spread of both misinformation and disinformation, which can lead to domestic mistrust, foster division, and undermine democratic values. Therefore, while some countries use digital authoritarianism to stifle the freedom of citizens, some use it to protect privacy.
Freedom has become an unaffordable luxury
The 2023 Freedom on the Net (US-based non-profit Freedom House) report, which was published on 4 October 2023, released a sequence of statistics that will have all of us asphyxiated. In 2023, global internet freedom faced its thirteenth consecutive year of decline, with a notable contributing factor being the utilisation of AI to spread disinformation and bolster the censorship of online content.
The report evaluated the internet freedom of 70 countries, using a detailed approach to assess challenges related to internet access, content restrictions and user rights violations. The study highlighted that nations such as Myanmar, the Philippines, and Costa Rica, have taken additional measures to shackle online freedom in the current year. And for the ninth year in a row, China stood out as the country with the least internet freedom. This is a clear indication as to how irrespective of whether it is an internet shutdown to cut off the voices of protestors, the use of surveillance technology to control the population or censorship laws to duct tape voices that criticise existing regimes, technology is being used for malicious purposes.
The current situation of the world has boiled down to an arms race between censors and the ones who are trying to dodge the bullet. As a result, while being acutely aware that there is no silver bullet to override the problem, it is high time that crucial questions about who runs the internet and who gets access to online information are answered. Otherwise, it won’t be long before all tech behemoths kowtow to autocrats on the pretext of acting in favour of the ‘greater good’. Remember how Elon Musk was caught in the act of pledging allegiance to the Turkish government and its request to censor a number of accounts that were critical of their president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan during the 2023 elections?
What is at stake?
A report published by Pew Research Centre on ‘The most harmful or menacing changes in digital life that are likely by 2035’ brings five themes to the forefront. Namely human-centred development of digital tools and systems, violation of human rights, loss of the best of human knowledge, adverse impact on human health and well-being and human connections, governance and institution. Most of the concerns were centred around how digital authoritarianism violates human rights. The 350-odd respondents who were a part of the survey which contributed to the compilation of the report expressed their fear about the absolute lack of privacy. This includes advancements in surveillance technologies, the presence of highly capable AI bots in public domains, the proliferation of deepfake content and disinformation, the widespread adoption of advanced facial recognition systems, and the widening disparities in both social and digital realms. It anticipates a broader reach of criminal activities and harassment, alongside the emergence of fresh challenges to human autonomy and security.
Once everything is summed up, what we are looking at right now is a future that is rife with worries about hyper-effective surveillance being exploited by authoritarian countries, dehumanisation of social life through technology and an entire breakdown of online spaces that allow free speech, public feedback and resistance. And this the level of damage that humanity will have to incur if we are being optimistic about the situation. This means that not even experts can predict the worst-case scenario.
(Sandunlekha Ekanayake)