Bannistan: time to step out of utopia
Every time the PTA announces a ban on a website, it publicises its existence to people who never knew about it
The writer is a director at Bolo Bhi and has previously worked at Newsline. She tweets @FariehaAziz
The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) is on a website blocking spree — yet again. In a directive issued to Internet Service Providers (ISPs), it has instructed them to block 429,343 URLs containing objectionable content. It seems as though some filters have come to rest permanently on the ears of PTA operatives, who seem to lose instructions given to them in court. In 2012, the Supreme Court instructed the PTA to ensure that the offending Innocence of Muslims video was removed. For the PTA, this instruction translated into ‘block YouTube’. In 2016, when the Court directed PTA to find “remedial measures” to the problem of offensive and objectionable online content, that somehow translated into the blocking over 400,000 URLs.
If anything, the YouTube ban has been a lesson in how the internet works and the futility of bans. How many times during the three-year ban on YouTube did we hear jubilant cries celebrating the return of YouTube? The excitement would die down once the ‘glitch’ in the ISPs’ filters or settings was taken care of and YouTube made unavailable once again. Over a period of time, people stopped celebrating because they just didn’t care anymore. They would circumvent the ban through the use of proxies and VPNs. This use of proxies and VPNs, or frequent glitches in the filters and settings of ISPs that made YouTube available while it was banned applied to other blocked websites as well — and still does.
A fact the morality brigade misses out on is that people are fairly oblivious to the existence of certain offensive content on the internet — until somebody announces it’s out there. Take for instance the Facebook ban of 2010 due to the presence of an offensive caricatures page. It was after the ban that traffic to the page increased — because people around the world found out such a page existed. The same applies to the offending Innocence of Muslims video. This video was present on YouTube four months prior to the ban when it was one day discovered and its existence announced. Once this happened and the bans were imposed, is when a large part of the global population learnt about its existence.
What’s baffling is that this is content you don’t want people to see. By announcing its existence, you’re sending hordes of traffic towards it. Why? The same goes for the other websites blocked by the PTA. Who knew of these 400,000-plus websites before a ban on them was announced? Now there is a centralised list of these blocked websites out there. How many hands must it have exchanged already — and continues to exchange?
What part of ‘how the internet or technology function’ does the morality brigade not understand? Its efforts are counterproductive for the very thing it wants to ensure — keeping people away from such content. In fact, its efforts turn into PR campaigns for the content that should have gone by unnoticed, unviewed. By announcing and compiling lists of such websites, it drives traffic towards them. And despite the bans, somewhere on the internet such content still exists — and there’s a way of getting to it.
The PTA has admitted before the courts that it’s not possible to completely block content on the internet. Then what is this latest blocking spree about? Do we have endless resources and money to burn over futile pursuits? Instead, there could be efforts to ensure more people gain access to the internet and that we harness it to make strides like others have around the world rather than reducing the internet to just porn and blasphemous content.
If we really want to consider viable solutions that fulfil the purpose of shielding people from content they may think is objectionable — and this is particularly important where children are concerned — methods other than state-level URL blocking and filtering will have to be considered. This is because the nature of technology simply renders these state-level measures ineffective, and more importantly, because the state has no business being our nanny.
Why not try some common sense for a change? Instead of going on blocking sprees, why not empower the user to better manage content in their homes. Let parents decide for their children. There are free-of-cost tools and software available. For parents who are not tech-savvy, ISPs can offer value-added services at a nominal cost that customers can opt into, out of choice, to ensure their children are not exposed to certain types of content. This won’t burden ISPs as they’ll be rid of the added operational costs that PTA directives bring with them, and will also provide consumers with a facility. But none of this will work with the prevailing mindset — where we want a thing removed completely, and want others to do it for us. Come to terms with how technology works and understand what’s possible and what’s not.
Unlike television, content on the internet doesn’t just appear in front of you. You have to make a conscious effort to get to it. A large part of being on the internet is about making the right decisions for yourself and exercising choice. That’s something technology or the internet can’t do for you — and neither can others.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 5th, 2016.
If anything, the YouTube ban has been a lesson in how the internet works and the futility of bans. How many times during the three-year ban on YouTube did we hear jubilant cries celebrating the return of YouTube? The excitement would die down once the ‘glitch’ in the ISPs’ filters or settings was taken care of and YouTube made unavailable once again. Over a period of time, people stopped celebrating because they just didn’t care anymore. They would circumvent the ban through the use of proxies and VPNs. This use of proxies and VPNs, or frequent glitches in the filters and settings of ISPs that made YouTube available while it was banned applied to other blocked websites as well — and still does.
A fact the morality brigade misses out on is that people are fairly oblivious to the existence of certain offensive content on the internet — until somebody announces it’s out there. Take for instance the Facebook ban of 2010 due to the presence of an offensive caricatures page. It was after the ban that traffic to the page increased — because people around the world found out such a page existed. The same applies to the offending Innocence of Muslims video. This video was present on YouTube four months prior to the ban when it was one day discovered and its existence announced. Once this happened and the bans were imposed, is when a large part of the global population learnt about its existence.
What’s baffling is that this is content you don’t want people to see. By announcing its existence, you’re sending hordes of traffic towards it. Why? The same goes for the other websites blocked by the PTA. Who knew of these 400,000-plus websites before a ban on them was announced? Now there is a centralised list of these blocked websites out there. How many hands must it have exchanged already — and continues to exchange?
What part of ‘how the internet or technology function’ does the morality brigade not understand? Its efforts are counterproductive for the very thing it wants to ensure — keeping people away from such content. In fact, its efforts turn into PR campaigns for the content that should have gone by unnoticed, unviewed. By announcing and compiling lists of such websites, it drives traffic towards them. And despite the bans, somewhere on the internet such content still exists — and there’s a way of getting to it.
The PTA has admitted before the courts that it’s not possible to completely block content on the internet. Then what is this latest blocking spree about? Do we have endless resources and money to burn over futile pursuits? Instead, there could be efforts to ensure more people gain access to the internet and that we harness it to make strides like others have around the world rather than reducing the internet to just porn and blasphemous content.
If we really want to consider viable solutions that fulfil the purpose of shielding people from content they may think is objectionable — and this is particularly important where children are concerned — methods other than state-level URL blocking and filtering will have to be considered. This is because the nature of technology simply renders these state-level measures ineffective, and more importantly, because the state has no business being our nanny.
Why not try some common sense for a change? Instead of going on blocking sprees, why not empower the user to better manage content in their homes. Let parents decide for their children. There are free-of-cost tools and software available. For parents who are not tech-savvy, ISPs can offer value-added services at a nominal cost that customers can opt into, out of choice, to ensure their children are not exposed to certain types of content. This won’t burden ISPs as they’ll be rid of the added operational costs that PTA directives bring with them, and will also provide consumers with a facility. But none of this will work with the prevailing mindset — where we want a thing removed completely, and want others to do it for us. Come to terms with how technology works and understand what’s possible and what’s not.
Unlike television, content on the internet doesn’t just appear in front of you. You have to make a conscious effort to get to it. A large part of being on the internet is about making the right decisions for yourself and exercising choice. That’s something technology or the internet can’t do for you — and neither can others.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 5th, 2016.