MeasuringthePoliticalandSocialConsequencesofGovernment-InitiatedCyberShutdowns

RyanShandler,UniversityofHaifaAbstract

Inthemodernage,digitalcommunicationtoolsplayacentralroleintheconductofprotestsand

assembliesduringperiodsofsocialunrest.TheforemostillustrationofthiswasduringtheArabspring,

wheredigitalplatformswereleveragedtopromoteandsustainpublicprotests.Inresponse,countries

attemptedtodispelgatheringsandlimitpublicprotestby‘shuttingdown’theInternetorblockingonline

accesstosocialforums.Sincethen,dozensofstateshavebeguntoemploycyber-shutdowns.Duringaone

yearperiod,astudytracked81differentinstancesofInternetshutdownsin19countries.Thistrendisonly

escalating.Whilesignificantresourceshavebeeninvestedintrackingthetechnicalcontestbetween

governmentsandactivists,noresearchhassucceededinacquiringindividualleveldataregardingthe

politicalandsocialeffectsofInternetdeprivation.Thisresearchpaperreflectsontwonovelexperimental

designsthatquantitativelymeasurehowcitizensrespondtocyberblackouts.Thefirstexperimentconsists

ofacontrolledexperimentthatteststheabilityofparticipantstocompletetasksrelatedtopolitical

participationundersimulatedtreatmentsofInternetaccessordeprivation.Theempiricalfindingssupport

ourhypothesesthattheabsenceofInternetaccesssignificantlyrestrictstheabilitytoengageinpolitical

activity.Asecondexperimentextendsthisresearchbeyondalaboratorysettingbytrackingtheactivityof

Internetusersinmultiplecountriesduringperiodofgovernment-initiatedInternetshutdowns.Thisallows

ustodeterminewhethermodernformsofdigitalpoliticalparticipationhavesupplantedtraditionaloffline

avenuesofpoliticalactivity,andwhethercitizensareabletocircumventcyberblackouts.

1.Introduction

Inthemodernage,digitalcommunicationtoolsplayacentralroleintheconductofprotestsand

assembliesduringperiodsofsocialunrest.TheforemostillustrationofthiswasduringtheArabspring,

wheredigitalplatformswereleveragedtopromoteandsustainpublicprotests.Theimportanceofthis

mediuminrelationtoprotestactivitywasshownascountriesattemptedtodispelgatheringsandlimit

publicprotestbyblockingonlineaccesstosocialforums(Morozov,2011).Itiswidelyheldthatthe

disparateforcesengagedinprotestactivitiesthroughouttheArabworldwouldnothavebeenableto

convergewithoutmoderncommunicationtechnologiesandsocialmedia(Arafa,2016).Sincegovernments

beganemployingcyber-shutdownsduringtheArabSpring,wehavewitnessedadrasticescalationinthe

useofthistool.Duringaoneyearperiodbetween2015and2016,astudytracked81differentinstances

ofInternetshutdownsin19countries(West,2016).NotableexamplesincludeTurkeyin2015where

TwitterandFacebookwereblockedinresponsetofearsoverthespreadofimagesofaterroristbombing

(Dearden,2015);IndiashutdownmobileservicesduringFebruary2016inresponsetostreetprotests

(Dash,2016);BrazilorderedtelecommunicationcompaniestoblockaccesstoWhatsAppinMay2016due

toprotests(Reuters,2016).Evenmorerecently,IranshutdownInternetinfrastructureinDecember2017

incitieswhereproteststookplaceagainstthegovernment’seconomicpolicies(Frenkel,2018).

Significantresourceshavebeeninvestedintrackingthetechnicalcontestbetweengovernmentsand

activists,andsubstantialdataexistsregardingthetypeandscopeoftheshutdowns.Howeverthereisfar

lessunderstandingofthesocialandpoliticaleffects.Ononehand,scholarssuchasMorozov(2011)argue

thatthecontributionofsocialmediatopopulardemonstrationsanddemocracymovementshasbeen

overhyped.Bycontrast,Chander(2011)arguesthattheveryfactthatgovernmentsimmediatelyadopt

InternetshutdownsinresponsetosocialunrestisveryproofofthepowerofunrestrainedInternetaccess.

AreportbyresearchersattheUniversityofWashingtonidentified606instancesintheyearsbetween

1995and2011where99differentgovernmentsintentionallyimpededtheoperationsoftheirnational

Internetinfrastructure(Howard,2011).

Inthecontextofpublicprotestsorpoliticaltension,authoritiesthreatenedwithsocialdissentare

increasinglyutilizingthetoolofInternetblackouts“asamethodofcontrollingboththeinformation

landscapeandcitizens’abilitytomobilize”(Searcey,2017).Shutdownscanrangefromacompleteclosure

oftheunderlyingInternetinfrastructure,totheclosureofmobileInternetservicesorevenparticular

subnationalappsorservicessuchasViOPorWhatsApp.Inrecentyears,wehaveseenadramaticincrease

intheuseofInternetshutdownswithmorethan19countriesadoptingsomeformcyberblackout.

Thereasonwhythistoolofcyber-blackoutsisbeingadoptedbygovernmentsisbecausethewidespread

diffusionofInternetaccesshasupendedtraditionalmethodsofpoliticalparticipationandcivic

engagement.Whereastraditionalpoliticalactswereconductedofflineandcenteredaroundelectoral

activity,todaythescopeofpoliticalparticipationhasbroadened.Politicaldiscourseanddebatehave

largelymovedtosocialmedia,socialprotestshaveadopteddigitalequivalents,andtheInternethas

becometheprimaryintermediaryforgovernment-citizeninteractionsandaccesstoinformation.These

newdigitalavenuesforcivicengagementhavedonemorethanoffertechnologicalshortcutsforan

Internetsavvygeneration–theyhavesignificantlyreshapedourdemocraticprocessesandstructuressuch

thatInternetaccessisnowaprerequisitetoparticipateinciviclife.Butthiscentralizationofdemocratic

participationthroughacyberfunnelalsooffersunparalleledopportunitiesforgovernmentstolimit

access,eithertoindividualsorentirepopulations.Combinedwithheightenedlevelsofsusceptibilityto

cyberdisconnectedness,wecanobserveadichotomyofdependenceandvulnerability,wherecitizens’

relianceonInternetaccesstorealizetheirbasiccivilrightsarematchedonlybytheirvulnerabilityto

Internetdisconnection.

Thisresearchpaperemploystwoexperimentsthatquantitativelymeasurehowcitizensrespondtothese

shutdowns,howitaffectstheirpoliticalattitudes,andhowtheysucceed(ordon’tsucceed)inaccessing

anddisseminatingpoliticalinformationduringperiodsofblackouts.Thefirstexperimentinvolvesisolating

participantsunderlaboratoryconditionsandmeasuringtheextenttowhichtheycanperformcivictasks

underconditionsofInternetaccessanddeprivation.TheresultsprovidestrongevidencethatInternet

accessistheprimarydeterminantoftheabilitytoengageinpoliticalexpressionandassociation.Following

thiscontrolledexperiment,wearesettinginplaceafieldexperimentthatwilltrackInternetusersin

multiplecountriesduringperiodofgovernment-initiatedInternetshutdowns.

Thefindingsoftheseexperimentsrelatetothefieldsofpublicpolicy,lawandhumanrights.Ifwefindthat

politicalparticipationhasbecomesointertwinedwithInternetaccessthatcitizensareunabletorealize

theirbasiccivicrightswhiledisconnected,thenthiswouldaltersthenature,andintime,perhaps,the

legalstatusofcyberconnectivity.Thiscouldimposenegativedutiesongovernmentstorefrainfrom

restrictingInternetaccess–fromeithertheentirepopulation,orfromspecificpersonssuchasprisoners.

Suchafindingwouldsupportthere-characterizationofInternetaccessasaprotectedpublicasset,and

imposepositivedutiesongovernmentstoensureaffordable,secureandhigh-speedInternetaccessforits

citizens.ThiswouldmakeInternetaccessakintopublicutilitiessuchaswaterorelectricity.Takentoits

mostextremeconclusion,thisresearchcouldlendsupporttotheargumentthatInternetaccessis

becomingahumanright,requiringanevenhigherlevelofprotection.

2.PoliticalParticipationandInternetDeprivation

2.1 InternetAccessandCivicEngagement

IntheshorttimethattheInternethasexisted,ithasbecomeacentralmediumofpoliticaldialogueand

hastransformedthenatureofpoliticalparticipation.Thegrowthindigitalpenetrationhasdemocratized

publiccommunicationbyallowinganypersontobroadcastatawhimtheirthoughtsandopinionstoa

globalaudiencewiththepushofabutton.Essentially,digitaltechnologiesandinfrastructurehave

transformedthesocialconditionsthroughwhichpeoplespeak”(Balkin,2014).Byloweringthecostof

participation,citizenswithfewresources,whowereotherwiseexcludedfromthecentralizedcorridorsof

politicaldiscourse,canparticipateinpublicdialogue(Balkin,2004).Butmorethanjustfacilitatingmass

participation,Internetgeneratedcivicparticipationinthetwenty-firstcenturydiffersinsignificantways

frommovementsofthepastandoftenoperateswithadifferentlogic(Tufekci,2017).Onthestructural

level,cyberparticipationovercomestheobstacleofgeographicaldispersionandisentirelyasynchronous

comparedtotraditionalformsofmediaandparticipation(i.e.youcan’tattendaphysicalprotestonceits

endsorquestionapoliticianinapublicforumafterquestiontimeends)(Coleman,2009).Byfacilitating

lateralpeer-to-peerdiscourse,theInternetpivotsthetraditionalmany-to-fewformsofcommunicationto

awideraudience.Digitalactivitiessuchaswebforumsandinteractivemediaenablemoreactive

engagementcomparedtothetraditionaloutletsthatallowedonlyforpassiveparticipation(Coleman,

2009).

“Therehasbeenconsiderableoptimismfrommanyobserversthatdigitalmediatoolscanstimulatevoting

andotherformsoftraditionalparticipation”bymakingpoliticalinformationmoreaccessibleand

encouragingengagement(Bimber,2015).Researchontheroleplayedbydigitalconnectivityhasfocused

onanumberofpromisinglinesoffocus.Onedirectionhasbeentomeasuretheextenttowhichcyber

connectivityandusageincreasesthelikelihoodthatpeoplewillengageinofflinepoliticalactivities,and

numerousstudieshavefoundsmallbutpositiveeffects(Bimber,2015;Bimber,2013;Bakker&deVreese,

2011).Anotherlineofresearchhasconcentratedontheriseofdigitalformsofpoliticalparticipationsuch

as‘clicktivism’,‘hacktivism’(Skoric,2012;Halupka,2014;Neumayer,2016)socialmediaprotests(George,

2018)andcitizenjournalism(Cram,2015).

Acentralelementofpoliticalparticipationispoliticalexpression.Inthisarea,thedigitalrevolutionhasnot

affectedthecontentoffreespeech,buthashadatransformativeimpactonitsmedium,inotherwords,

theprocessofspeakingfreely.IntheshorttimethattheInternethasexisted,ithasbecomeacentral

mediumofpoliticaldialogue.InanAmericanstudy,66%ofsocialmediausers,constituting39%of

Americanadults,engagedincivicorpoliticalactivitiesthroughsocialmedia.Likewise,73%ofadult

Internetusers(representing54%ofallUSadults)wentonlinetogetnewsorinformationduringthe2010

congressionalelectionsortogetinvolvedinpoliticalcampaigns(PewResearchCenter,2016).This

migrationofdiscourseistakingplaceinallmattersofsubstantivediscourseandnotjustinmedia.The

increasingpredominanceofdigitaljournalism(Conaghan,2015;Cram,2015),thetransitionofacademic

journalstoInternetbasedformats(King,etal.,2003;Luther,2002),theroleofdigitalinterfacesin

promotingpublicopinionandtheevolutionofonlinereceiptofletterstotheeditor,asymbolofpopular

participationinpoliticaldiscourse,allofferstarkinsightintothevitalroleplayedbytheInternetin

enablingmodernspeech.

Likewiseforpoliticalassociationandinteraction,anotherfundamentalpillarofpoliticaldemocracy,the

Internetplaysakeyroleineasingandfacilitatingtraditionalformsofassemblybymakingpossible

instantaneousglobalcommunicationandenablingtheefficientandtargetedrecruitingofmembers.The

Internetadditionallyenablestheconductofassembliesandforumsinwaysneverbeforeseenor

imagined.“InaworldwherecitizensareincreasinglyconnectedtotheInternet,assembliesarenotonly

plannedandorganisedonline,assembliescanoccurentirelyonline”(AlmstromandLiddicoat,2012).

Physicalproximityisnolongernecessaryforagrouptoconductmeetings.Facetofacehumaninteraction

hasbecomeculturallyarchaicinlightofefficientonlineforumsthatamplifyattendanceandensure

anonymity.ThecriticalinfluenceofInternetusageontheconductofpopularassembliescametothefore

duringtheArabspringwheredigitalplatformsinspiredpublicprotests.Theimportanceofthismediumin

relationtoprotestactivitywasprovedtimeandtimeagainascountriesattemptedtodispelgatherings

andlimitpublicprotestbyblockingonlineaccesstosocialforums(Morozov,2010).Itiswidelyheldthat

thedisparateforcesengagedinprotestactivitiesthroughouttheArabworldwouldnothavebeenableto

convergewithoutmoderncommunicationtechnologiesandsocialmedia(Arafa,2016).

Despitetheenthusiasmforthestimulatingeffectofdigitalconnectivity,researchhasidentifiedsignificant

negativeside-effects.Foremostamongthesearethesecurityvulnerabilitiesofdigitalplatformsthatcan

bemanipulatedmoreeasilythantraditionalofflinecommunicationmechanisms.Recentelectionsin

EuropeandtheUnitedStateshaveshowcaseshowtechnologycanbemanipulatedtoundermine

democraticpractice,sowdiscordandentrenchfalsenarrativeswithinmainstreamdiscourse(Coleman,

2009).Othervulnerabilitiesincludethecensorialpowerofthemoderatorandthefearthatnewcentersof

digitalpowermerelyrecalibratesthepoliticalelitesratherthandistributingpowertothemasses

(Coleman,2009).AongoinglineofresearcharguesthattheInternetwillnotnecessarilyencourage

politicallyapatheticcitizenstobecomemoreengaged,andwillonlyservetogalvanizeadditionalactivity

amongpoliticallyactivecitizens(Boulianne,2011).

2.2 ModesofInternetDeprivation

InvoluntaryInternetdeprivationisnotatheoreticalphenomenon.Whilethispaperwillfocus

primarilyonthephenomenonofgovernment-initiatedInternetshutdowns,therearecommon

methodsthatservetodisconnectmillionsofpeoplefromtheInternet.Themostvisibledanger

relatedtoInternetdeprivationistheriskofcyberattack.Akeycharacteristicofcyberoffensivetools

isthatthisisanasymmetricresource.Sophisticatedcyber-toolsthatwereoncethedomainof

governmentagenciesarenowcommonlyutilizedbydomesticandinternationalcyber-criminalsthat

targetbusinessesandindividuals.Governmentsponsoredcyber-warfarehasallowedevencountries

withrelativelyweakmilitarystrengthtoemployandutilizeasymmetricalmilitarytools,theresultsof

whicharespillingoverintocivilianlife.Theanonymityofcyber-attacks,oratleastthedifficultyin

ascribingattribution,meansthatcontrarytoclassicalmilitaryconflicts,governmentsappearmore

willingtoemployoffensivecybertools.Inadditiontothemyriadtargetedcyber-attacksthatfocus

onintelligencegatheringorsabotageandarelimitedtoisolatedinstitutions,thereisevidenceof

cyberattackstargetingciviliannetworkssuchastheallegedRussianattackontheUkraineinMarch

2014thatshutdownmobilephonenetworksandhamperedInternetconnectionsformillionsof

Ukrainians(Lee,2014).Highprofileransomwareattackshaveinfectedmorethanhalfamillion

computersinover150countriesandexpandedthegroundsforInternetdeprivationtocriminally

motivatedacts(Yellepeddi,2017).Commercialespionagehasalsoadaptedtothecyberagewith

approximately47%ofUScompaniesexperiencingaransomwareattackorotheronlineintrusion

duringarecorded12monthperiod(OstermanSurvey,2016).

AnotherfactorthatleadstoInternetdeprivationisthedigitaldivide.Thedigitaldividerefers

generallytodisparitiesinconnectivityamongsegmentsofpopulationgroups,bothinternationally

andwithincountries.Theprimaryelementofthisphenomenonthatisofinteresttousisthe

divergenceinconnectivitywithinindustrializedcountries.Age,forexample,isonekeydiverging

factorthatisstronglyrelatedtogreaterInternetconnectivity.InaDutchstudy,acountryrenowned

foritshighrateofconnectivity,19percentofthoseaged65andolderwerefoundtolackregular

Internetaccessathome,comparedtoratesof5%,1%and0%amongyoungeragebrackets(Van

Deursen,2015).InBritain,51percentoftheelderlypopulationwerefoundtolackInternetaccessat

homein2013(Dutton,2015).Povertyforobviousreasonscansignificantlyimpactconnectionrates

owingtothecostofcomputerequipment,Internetconnectionfees,mobilephonesandmore.

AthirdcommonavenueleadingtoInternetdeprivationiscriminalpunishment.Stateshavelong

restrictedInternetaccesstoprisoners–mostcommonlyforsexoffendersandaccusedterrorists

(Wagner,2012).Therationaleforthisdeprivationispublicsafety–inthatsexoffenderscould

ostensiblycontinuetooffendovertheInternet,evenbehindbars,andmembersofterroristgroups

andorganizedcrimecouldcontinuetodirectoperations.Thispracticeofdeprivationhasledtolegal

battlesinstateandfederalcourtsoftheUnitedStates,andincountriesasdiverseasIndiaandthe

UnitedKingdom.ThecourtshaveconsistentlystruckdownInternetdeprivationlawsonthebasis

thatitdisproportionatelyharmstherealizationoffreeexpressionandotherrights.Themost

significantlegalrulingwashandeddownin2017bytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinthecaseof

Packinghamv.NorthCarolina.Inthiscase,thecourtunanimouslystruckdownastatelawthat

barredregisteredsexoffendersfromaccessingsocialmedia(Packingham,2016).Representingthe

majorityposition,JusticeKennedymadeclearhowtheInternethastransformedciviclifeand

assumedtheroleofthemodern‘publicsquare’.

‘Byprohibitingsexoffendersfromusingthosewebsites,NorthCarolinawithonebroadstrokebarsaccess

towhatformanyaretheprincipalsourcesforknowingcurrentevents,checkingadsforemployment,

speakingandlisteninginthemodernpublicsquare,andotherwiseexploringthevastrealmsofhuman

thoughtandknowledge.Thesewebsitescanprovideperhapsthemostpowerfulmechanismsavailabletoa

privatecitizentomakehisorhervoiceheard.TheyallowapersonwithanInternetconnectionto“become

atowncrierwithavoicethatresonatesfartherthanitcouldfromanysoapbox”’.

Thesemodesofdeprivationarenotexhaustive.Amongotherpossibilities,citizenscanalsochooseto

disconnectfromtheInternetinresponsetoprivacyconcernsrelatingtosurveillanceorcensorship;

andreligiousgroupscanencouragememberstoavoidInternetconnectionsformoralorcommunal

reasons.

2.3 Government-InitiatedInternetShutdowns

Atthesametimethatthejudicialsystemischampioningtherightsofprisonerstomaintainaccesstothe

Internet,governmentsacrosstheworldareimplementingpartialorcomprehensiveInternetdisruptions

thataffectthewiderpopulation.Thesestates,typicallybutnotalwayscharacterizedbyautocratic

governancefeatures,haveattimesinitiatedsomeformofInternetblackout,relyingonaseriesof

justificationsthatincludesafeguardinggovernmentauthority,reducingpublicdissidence,fighting

terrorism,maintainingnationalsecurity,orprotectinglocalbusinesses.Authoritiesareincreasingly

utilizingthistool‘asamethodofcontrollingboththeinformationlandscapeandcitizens’abilityto

mobilize,inrecognitionofthefactthattheInternethasbecomeafundamentaltoolforpeopletorealize

theirrightsandparticipatemeaningfullyinsociety’(Searcey,2017).

Intermsofpurenumbers,thenumberoftemporarygovernmentinitiatedInternetshutdownshas

risenexponentiallyinrecentyears.OnestudyconductedbyUniversityofWashingtonresearchers

identified606instanceswhere99differentgovernmentsdeliberatelyinterferedwithInternet

operationsbetween1995and2011(Howard,2011).Comparedtoasingledisruptionin1995,and

fourdisruptionsin1996,thenumberroseto111in2010.Duringaoneyearperiodbetween2015

and2016,aBrookingsInstituteresearchprojectledbyDarrellWesttracked81differentinstancesof

Internetshutdownsin19countries(West,2016).Hisresearchobservedacumulativetotalof753

daysofaffectedInternetservicescausingsomeUSD$2.4Billionineconomicdamagetothe

respectivecountries.ADeloittestudyestimatedthattheperdayfinancialcostofatemporary

Internetshutdowninacountrywithhighratesofconnectivitywouldreach$23.6millionper10

millionpopulation(Deloitte,2016).Thisdoesnotincludethenon-numericalvalueofthedamage

causedtotheinabilityofcitizenstofulfillparticulardemocraticandsocialfunctionsthatrelyon

Internetaccess.

ThemostcitedmodernillustrationofanInternetshutdownwasbyEgyptduringtheArabSpring

protestsduring2011.Inresponsetoincreasinglyviolentstreetproteststhatthreatenedthestability

oftheMubarakregime,authoritiesadoptedharshstepstodispelprotestersandendthepopular

uprising.Ashistoryshows,theclumsyresponsetothenetwork-drivenprotestsbackfired,but

governmentshavelearnedfromthislessonanddevelopedmoresophisticatedmethodstoneutralize

thosewhowouldusedigitaltoolsagainstthem(Tufekci,2017).Today,itisnotablethatoneofthe

primarystepstakentodisperseproteststhatarebeingpublicizedonlineistoorderISPstoshut

downallinternationalconnectionstotheInternetbeforetheyleadtophysicaldemonstrations

(Subramanian,2011).InlightoftherelativelyfewISPsinthecountryatthetimewithinternational

digitalconnections,thishadtheeffectofseveringInternetservicesforcivilians.Othernotablerecent

exampleofgovernmentshutdownsincludeTurkeyin2015followingaterroristbombingatapublic

rally(Dearden,2015),Indiathroughout2016and2017inresponsetofrequentstreetprotests(Dash,

2016),andBrazilfollowingcorruptionprotestsin2016(Reuters,2016).Whilethejustificationof

mostoftheseoccurrencesrelyonmaintaininglawandorderandprotectingpublicsafety,multiple

countriesincludingUganda,Algeria,IndiaandIraqhavedisruptedInternetservicesowingto

concernsaboutstudentcheatingonnationalexams(West,2016).

AsthenumbersofInternetusershasgrown,stateshavedevelopedincreasinglysophisticatedtechniques

tocensorcontentsuchascontrollingcentralintermediariesandsearchportals,controllingthefinancial

intermediaries,controllingtheconduitsandISPsandsearchresultfiltering.Recently,theriseinprocessing

powerhasallowedcertainstatestoerectgatekeepersystemsthatostensiblyactasabufferbetweenthe

externalInternetandallcitizens.InSaudiArabiaforinstance,“thegovernmentisquiteopenaboutits

filteringpractices,andtheroleoftheproxyserverispublishedonitswebsite”(Subramanian,2011).The

mostdrasticstepisatotalcyberblockade.Thisstepentailscompletelyblockingallaccessfromanyentity

insidetoanyentityoutside,andviceversa.Thisisthestepthathasgainedthepopularparlance‘Internet

KillSwitch’–evenifnosuchswitchreallyexists.CountrieslikeMyanmarin2007andEgyptin2011

initiatedthe‘killswitch’byorderingallISPsoperatinginthecountrytoshutdownallinternational

connectionstotheInternet.Forthistoworkeffectively,itrequiresthatthecountrypossessarelatively

smallnumberofISPsandthatthecountrypossessweakjudicialindependence.Eventhen,theprocessof

turningofftheInternetcantakedaysastheISPsslowlywinddownoperations.

3.ExperimentalMethodology–MeasuringtheEffectofInternetShutdowns

WhileexhaustivedebatehasfocusedonthenationalimpactofpervasiveInternetaccess,andnewstudies

haveconsideredthetechnicalabilitytocircumventcensorshipandothercyberdisruption,noresearchhas

managedtoacquirequantitativedataonhowInternetdeprivationaffectspoliticalparticipationorthe

realizationofcivilrightsonanindividuallevel.Tocounterthisabsenceofdata,weemploytwo

complementaryexperimentalresearchdesigns.ThefirstexperimentisolatestheeffectofInternet

deprivationincontrolledlaboratorysettingsinordertoexplorethepreciseeffectofdeprivationon

individualelementsofpoliticalactivities.Toovercometheabsenceofanempiricaltesttomeasurethe

effectofInternetdeprivationonanindividuallevel,theauthordevelopedanewexperimentalprocedure

thatwastestedonapredominantlystudentpopulation.Thesecondexperiment,stillintheplanning

phase,movestoareallifesettingofInternetshutdownstoexplorehowcitizensindifferentcountries

respondtothisphenomenon.

Experiment1–InternetDeprivationExperimentUnderControlledConditions

Theaimofthisexperimentwastodevelopacontrolled,randomizedmethodologytogaugetheabilityof

participantstocompletepoliticalactivitiesundertheconditionsofInternetaccessanddeprivation.Three

particularareaswerechosenthatreflectthreecentralmanifestationsofpoliticalparticipation–political

expression,politicalassociationandaccesstopoliticalinformation.

Methodology

Sixtyparticipantswererecruitedtoparticipateinanactivitythatwasmarketedasa‘scavengerhunt’.The

experimentwasconductedonauniversitysettingandsoincludedapopulationsamplethatlargely

includedstudents,aswellasanumberofparticipantsdrawnfromthewidercommunity.Participantswere

given60minutestocompletethreetasksthatsimulatedtherealizationofthepoliticalactivitiesthatwere

beinginvestigated–politicalexpression,politicalassociationandaccesstopoliticalinformation.

ParticipantsrandomlyassignedtothetreatmentconditionwereforbiddenaccesstotheInternet,but

coulduseallothertoolsavailabletotheminauniversitylibraryenvironment.Participantsrandomly

assignedtothecontrolconditionhadfulluseofallpersonalandenvironmentaltools,includingInternet

services.Toincentivizeparticipationandgood-faithattemptstocompletetasks,theexperimentwas

marketedasascavengerhuntwithfinancialremunerationbasedonthenumberoftaskscompleted.

Followingthe60-minuteinterval,participantsabilitytocompletethetasksweremeasuredaccordingtoa

fourpointscalewherebyfourpointsindicatedthatparticipantswerefullyabletocompletethetask,and

onepointindicatedthatparticipantswereunabletocompletethetaskandunabletoconceiveofhowto

completethetask.Theprimarydependentvariableinthisexperimentwaspoliticalparticipation,and

additionaldemographicvariablessuchasage;gender;educationlevel;politicalself-identification;family

income;andaveragedailyInternetusagewereallcollected.

PoliticalParticipationMeasure-Theprimarydependentvariablethattheexperimentmeasuresisthe

abilitytorealizecivictasks/engageinpoliticalparticipation.Wedistinguishbetweenthreeelementsof

politicalparticipation–politicalexpression,groupcongregationorassociationandacquiringpolitical

information.Tooperationalizetheseactivities,weselectedtasksthatsimulatetypicalmanifestationsof

expression,associationandinformationindailylife.Whilethesetasksdonotreflectthefullscopeofeach

elementofpoliticalparticipation,achallengethatisdiscussedfurtherbelow,theywerechosentoreflect

rudimentaryfeaturesoftheseelementsindailylife.Thetasksgiventoparticipantswere:1)Publicly

critiqueasocialorpoliticalissuesuchthatitreachesawideaudience(expression).2)Identifythetopic

andcontentofalocalNGOscampaignsloganthatisactiveinrecentdemonstrations(association)3)

IdentifythenamesoftheMembersofParliamentwhoinitiatedarecentbillofparliament(information).

Thecompletionofthesetaskswerecodedonafour-pointscalefrom4–fullyabletocompletethetask,to

1–Entirelyunabletocompletethetaskorconceiveofhowtocompletethetask.Fullcompletionoftasks

requiredparticipantstosuccessfullyacquirethecorrectinformationbeingsought(fortaskstwoand

three)ortoeffectivelycommunicatetheirpoliticalpositiontoasufficientlylargeaudience(taskone).

Results

OurstatisticalanalysisstrategyforthisexperimentinvolvedacombinationofT-tests,chi-squaredanalyses

andlogisticregressionanalyses.Asaninitialstep(a),weconductedaseriesofindependentsamplest-

teststomeasurethedifferencebetweencontrol(Internetaccess)andtreatment(Internetdeprived)

groupsintherealizationofeachofthethreecomponentsofpoliticalparticipation.Buildingonthis(b),we

ranaseriesofchi-squaredanalysestodeterminewhethertheproportionofparticipantswhocompleted

thetasksundertreatmentandcontrolconditionsdifferedfromtheexpectedoutcome.Wewere

particularlyinterestedinasuccessversusfailureoutcome,andsorecodedthetaskcompletionvariable

intocategoriesandusedachi-squareanalysistotestfordifferencesbetweentheconditions.Finally(c),

weelectedtorunalogisticregressionanalysistofurthersupportourhypothesestoshowthattheeffect

remainssignificantwhencontrollingforadditionalvariables.Thesetestsallowustoconfirmour

hypothesesbyquantifyingtheextenttowhichtheInternetaccessvariableaffectstheabilitytocomplete

thedifferenttasks.

Ourinitialstepofconductingindependentsamplet-testsrevealedthatthetreatmentvariable(Internet

deprivation)hadsignificantnegativeeffectsontheabilityofparticipantstorealizethethreetasks(see

Table1).Inparticular,thetreatmenteffectontasksoneandtwo(p<.007andp<.002)werehighly

significant,whiletheeffectfortask3wasnotsignificant.Thissupportsoursuspicionthataccessto

politicalinformationwasassociatedwithbutnotyetcompletelyreliantonInternetaccess.Theeffectsizes

forallthreetasksweremediumtolarge,offeringfurthersupportforourhypotheses.

Forthesubsequentchi-squaredanalysestests,weconvertedthe4pointtaskoutcomescaleintoa

dichotomousvariablewherebytheoriginal4points(fullcompletion)=1;and1,2or3points(partial

completionorlower)=0.ThisconversionallowsustopinpointtheinfluenceofInternetaccessonfulltask

completionandreflectsastricterviewthattherealizationofcivicrightshasonlyabinaryoutcomeand

doesnotfallonagradientscale.Thisconversionhastheaddedbenefitofenablingachi-squaredanalysis

forasmallNexperimentwhereindividualcelloutcomeswouldotherwisebelow.Bycomparingthe

observedresultstotheexpecteddistribution(seeTable2),wefindthatInternetaccesssubstantially

affectedthedistributionofsuccessintherealizationofpoliticalexpression(χ2(df=1)=6.46,p=.011)and

politicalassociation(χ2(df=1)=14.59,p<.001),andhasaslightlylesssignificanteffectonaccessto

politicalinformation(χ2(df=1)=4.66,p=.031).Specifically,intheInternetaccess(control)condition,

61%ofparticipantswereabletofullyengageinpoliticalexpression,comparedtoonly29%intheno

Internetaccess(treatment)condition.Similarly,93%ofparticipantswereabletorealizetheirrightto

politicalassociationintheInternetaccesscondition,comparedtoonly47%inthenoInternetaccess

condition.Andonthetaskreflectingaccesstoinformation,71%ofparticipantswereabletocompletethe

taskintheInternetaccesscondition,comparedtoonly44%inthenoInternetaccesscondition.Ofthose

whoscoredacombinedtaskaverageof3.00orhigher–indicatingcompleteorpartialcompletionoftasks

–thedifferencewasevenstarkerwith89%ofcontrolsubjectssucceedingcomparedto50%oftreatment

subjects(seeTable4).

Tofurthertestourhypotheses,weconductedlogisticregressionanalysestotesttheeffectoftheInternet

accessconditionwhilecontrollingforthefollowingdemographicvariables–age,gender,levelof

education,politicalidentification,familyincomeandaveragedailyInternetusage(SeeTable3forresults).

Theanalysiswasconductedintwostages,withtheprimarycontrol/treatmentconditionusedastheonly

variableinstage1,andwithdemographicvariablesenteredassimultaneouspredictorsinstage2.During

eachstage,thelogisticregressionanalyseswereconductedthreetimes–predictingtaskcompletionfor

eachofthethreetasksindependently.TheseanalysesindicatedthattheInternetaccesscondition

significantlypredictedsuccessfultaskcompletionforeachofthethreetasksevenafterdemographicand

othervariableswereaddedtothemodel,indicatingthatInternetaccesshasaneffectaboveandbeyond

theeffectofthesevariables.

Experiment2–PoliticalParticipationDuringGovernment-InitiatedInternetShutdowns

Acomplementarysecondstudythatiscurrentlybeingconductedwillextendthisresearchbeyonda

controlledenvironmenttoreal-lifesituationsofInternetdeprivation.TheexperimentutilizeslargeN

surveythataredistributedimmediatelybeforeandafteraninstanceofprolongedInternetshutdown,

withtheaimofgaininginsightintoifandhowciviliansareabletocircumventInternetblackoutsduring

periodsofsocialprotests.Acentralchallengetothisresearch,andareasonfortheabsenceofaccurate

dataonhowcitizensrespondtoInternetshutdowns,isthatbytheverynatureofInternetshutdowns,

governmentsdonotbroadcastinadvancewhentheyintendto“switchoff”theInternet.Thissecond

experimentisstillintheplanningstage,andweexpecttopublishresultsduringthesecondhalfof2018.

Forthepurposesofthisexperiment,pre-andpost-outcomeswillbeobtainedusingclosedended

structuredquestionnairesthatincludemeasurespertainingtopoliticalefficacy,trustingovernment,

politicalparticipation,dailyfunctioningintheabsenceofInternetaccessandtheabilitytocircumvent

cybercontrols.Acentralchallengetoourresearchistoselectlocationstoconducttheexperimentwithout

knowinginadvancewhereandwhenancyber-blackouteventwilltakeplace.Toovercomethis,werelyon

trendsthroughwhichwecanforecastlikelylocationsofimpendingshutdowns.In2016and2017for

example,thecountriesthatexperiencesthelargestnumberofunexpectedInternetshutdownswereIndia,

Iraq,Syria,Pakistan,TurkeyandBrazil.Theseshutdownstookplaceinthecontextofcivildissent,protests

andpublicviolence.Extrapolatingforward,wecanrelyontwopredictivevariablestoforecastlocationsof

likelyInternetshutdownsduringthesubsequenttwelvemonths.Thesevariablesarea)acountrythathas

ahistoryofusingInternetshutdowns;andb)simmeringdissentandsocialtensionthatisliableto

generateprotestsduringthesubsequentperiod.Thoughthesevariablescannotguaranteethelikelihood

ofanyshutdown,researchindicatesthatthesearetheminimumconditionsrequiredforashutdownto

takeplace.Weaddtothisathirdvariablewhichisthatduringperiodsofstability,Internetaccessand

socialmediausagemustbesufficientlypervasivesuchthatitformsanaturalavenueofpolitical

expression.Thisisnecessarysothatanyinterruptionwillhaveameasurableeffect,whichcanthenbe

extrapolatedtoothercountrieswithhighlevelsofInternetpenetration.

4.Discussion

Ourresearchfindingsupuntilthispointindicatethatcitizensaregenerallyunabletoengageinpolitical

participationintheabsenceofInternetconnectivity.Thequestionforusiswhatthisfindingmeansforthe

phenomenonofInternetshutdowns.OneperspectiveisthatInternetdisconnectionsarethecyber

equivalenttoemployingcrowddispersaldevicessuchassmokegrenades,sonicweapons,cavalry,etc.

Internetdisconnectionscouldbeconsideredacybersmokegrenadeifyouwill.Yetunliketraditional

crowddispersaltools,Internetdisconnectionsarenotsubjecttothesamelimitations.Indemocratic

countries,freedomofexpressionisaprizedright,andpoliceonlydisperseprotestsinparticular

circumstanceswheretheprotestreachesthelevelofincitement,orthecrowdposesadangertothelives

ofothers.Internetdisconnectionsbycontrast,arenottypicallyassociatedwiththeviolationof

constitutionallyprotectedrightssuchasfreedomofexpression,andsoitsuseisviewedlessthreateningly.

YetInternetdisconnectionsaffectmorethantheabilitytocongregateandprotest.Ourresearchshows

howcyberdeprivationsubstantiallydecreasestheabilitytoengageinpoliticalexpressionorattain

politicalinformation.ItisforthisreasonthatanInternetshutdownessentiallypreventspoliticalactivity,

allowingforstatestopreventpoliticaldiscourseduringcontentiousperiods.Bylookingattheinstancesof

disconnectionsreviewedabove,wecanseehowstates,usuallybutnotnecessarilycharacterizedbyan

absenceofdemocraticnorms,usethistoolduringperiodsofpoliticalinstability–duringanti-regime

protestsforexample.ThislendscredencetoChander’s(2011)argumentthatthewidespreaduseof

Internetshutdownsbygovernmentsinresponsetosocialunrestisprimafacieevidenceofthe

contributionofInternetaccesstopoliticalparticipation.

Internetaccesshasbecomeinextricablyintertwinedwiththeabilitytoengageinpoliticalparticipation.As

aresult,cyberdisconnectionscanmeanthatgovernmentsaredisconnectingcitizensfromtheabilityto

politicallyengage.Thereasonthisstatementisimportant,isthatthisisnotthewaythatdisconnections

arecommonlyperceived.Insofarascyberdisconnectionsaretantamounttopoliticaldisconnections,

statesshouldbearanegativedutytoavoidanyinstanceofInternetdisconnections,apartfromthemost

extremecircumstancesthatwouldwarranttraditionalsecurityactionsthatcanblocktraditional

expressionandcongregation.

Totheextentthatwearetalkingaboutmoderatingstateactivityandimposingnegativedutiestorefrain

fromextremeacts,thisconclusionisnotparticularlycontroversial,andmainlydemandsaslightchangein

framing.Yettakentothenextlevel,ourresearchrevealshowpeoplearehighlydependentonInternet

accesstorealizebasiccivilandhumanrightsthatareconnectedwithpoliticalparticipation.Ataminimum,

thisrelatestofreedomofexpression,freedomofassociationandfreedomofinformation,butthiscould

conceivablyextendtootherrightssuchastherighttoeducation,therighttoemployment,therightto

personalandnationaldevelopment,etc.Underthisinterpretation,whereInternetaccessfacilitatesthe

abilitytorealizebasiccivilrights,theninadditiontoanegativedutytoavoidconductingInternet

disconnections,governmentscouldevenpossessapositivedutytoactivelyprovideInternetaccessto

disenfranchisedmembersofthepopulation.

Thisnewdichotomyofcyberdependencetorealizebasiccivilrightsweighedagainstvulnerabilityto

cyber-disconnectionmayrequireamorecomprehensivehumanrightsframework.Ademandtoaddress

moderncyberchallengesthroughahumanrightslenshasbeenechoedbyinternationalinstitutions,

nationallegislativebodiesandcourtsaroundtheworld.Themostprominentcallshavecomefromthe

UnitedNations(UnitedNations,2016)andEuropeanUnion(CouncilofEurope,2011;CouncilofEurope,

2015).Inhislandmark2011report,FrankLaRue,theSpecialRapporteuronthePromotionandProtection

oftheRighttoFreedomofOpinionandExpressionproclaimedthat‘theInternethasbecomean

indispensabletoolforrealizingarangeofhumanrights’inlightofwhich‘statesshoulddevelopaconcrete

andeffectivepolicy[…]tomaketheInternetwidelyavailable,accessibleandaffordabletoallsegmentsof

population’(UnitedNations,2011).AfindingthatInternetaccessisahumanrightwouldimposeeven

strongerpositivedutiesongovernmentstoensuretheresilienceofInternetaccess.

Inbuildingthishumanrightsapproach,fourdifferentstreamshaveemergedbywhichInternetaccess

couldattainthestatusofahumanright.ThefirstapproachreliesonArticle19(2)oftheICCPRthat

declares:‘[e]veryoneshallhavetherighttofreedomofexpression;thisrightshallincludefreedomtoseek,

receiveandimpartinformationandideasofallkinds,regardlessoffrontiers,eitherorally,inwritingorin

print,intheformofart,orthroughanyothermediaofhischoice’.Theargumenthereisthatthelanguage

usedinthisclauseissufficientlybroadtoapplytonewtechnologiesthatfacilitatetheprotectedactivities.

ThesecondapproachtoahumanrightsframeworkforInternetaccessisbasedonarticle19ofthe

UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights,whichguaranteessimilarprotections.Athirdandmorerecent

approachclaimsthatnationalpracticeandrisinglevelsofinstitutionalsupportontheinternationallevelis

sufficienttocomprisecustomaryinternationallawandsograntInternetaccessthestatusofahuman

right.Finally,afourthargumentclaimsthatInternetaccesshasbecomean‘auxiliaryhumanright’in

supportofaseriesofprimaryrights.Anauxiliaryrightisasecondaryhumanrightthatissoinextricably

intertwinedwithapre-existingprimaryright,thatitattainsthestatusofahumanrightuntoitself.This

claimassertsthatavarietyofcivil,politicalandhumanrightshavebecomeentirelyintertwinedwith

Internetaccess,andthatintheabsenceofInternetaccesstherightwouldlosesubstanceandvalue.Inthis

case,theprimaryrightsthatitcouldconnecttoincludefreedomofexpression,freedomofinformation,

freedomofassociation,therighttonationaldevelopment,therighttoeducation,therighttoemployment

andmore.Oftheargumentsreviewedhere,ourresearchmostcloselyattuneswiththeauxiliaryrighthood

argument,sincewehavemeasuredastatisticallysignificantrelationshipbetweenInternetaccessandthe

abilitytorealizetheseprimaryhumanrights.

WidespreadInternetaccesshastransformedthenatureofpoliticalparticipationandenfranchisedmillions

ofcitizenswhohavegainedaplatformtomaketheirvoicesheard.Whilethisprocessofsocial

transformationbearssignificantpositives,theprocessoffunnelingalargeportionofpoliticalactivity

throughavulnerableplatformcanformamajorweakness.Muchofthiswilldependonwhetherthenew

cybermodesofpoliticalparticipationhaveaddedtotherepertoireofpoliticalactivity,orwhetherthey

havesupplantedtraditionalofflinemodesofparticipationthatmaynolongerbeavailable.Forinstance,

manymajornewspapersnolongeraccepthandwrittenorpostedletterstotheeditor,andyounger

generationsarelessawareofofflinechannelsofpoliticalexpression.Thefindingsfromourresearchshow

exactlywhygovernmentsaretakingadvantageofthischokepointtocutoffInternetaccessduring

politicallysensitiveperiods.

5.LimitationsandContributionsofthisResearch

Thereareanumberoffactorsthatlimittheutilityofthisresearch.Aprimarylimitationinthecontrolled

laboratoryexperimentsisthatthetasksthatsimulatetherealizationofpoliticalparticipationareonly

partiallyreflectiveofitsfullscope.Politicalparticipationisacomplexconcept,andisolatingitssub-

categories(politicalexpression,association,information)asdependentvariablesrequirepinpointing

particularoperationalizations.Politicalassociation,forexample,includesabroadarrayofactivities

includingparticipationinstreetdemonstrations,signingpetitions,joininglaborunionsandpolitical

parties,andmuchmore.Politicalexpressionconstitutesanevenbroaderarrayofconnectedactions.In

theUnitedStates,thescopeofprotectedpoliticalexpressionhasbeenextendedbythecourtstoinclude

bakingcakesandmakingpoliticaldonations.Undercontrolledconditions,ourresearchasksparticipantsto

completeparticulartasksthatreflecttheessenceofeachcategory,theresultsofwhichcanbe

extrapolatedtothefullscopeofthatright.Futureresearchshouldexpandthismethodologytoadditional

activities.

Asecondandconnectedlimitationisthemannerinwhichacontrolledcampusexperimentwithastudent

populationcanbegeneralizedtothewiderpopulation.Toconfidentlygeneralizethisresearchtoawider

population,thisexperimentwillneedtobereplicatedwithalargerandmorerepresentativepopulation

sample,observingalongerperiodofdeprivation,andtakeplaceoutsideoftheconfinesofacampus

setting.Ideallythisexperimentalmethodologywouldtakeplaceinmultiplecountriestotakeintoaccount

thevaryingdegreesofInternetsaturationindifferentcountries,thedifferentdatesofwidespread

Internetpenetration,andthesubsequentvariationinrelianceonInternetaccesstocompletedifferent

tasks.

Despitetheselimitations,thisexperimentalmethodstillcontributeshighlyvaluabledata.Thisisthefirst

researchtoexperimentallytestandquantifiablymeasuretheeffectofInternetdeprivationuponthe

realizationofparticularcivilrights.Theresultsofthefirstphaseofthisdual-experimentmethodology

succeededinbuildinganeffectivemethodologytoempiricallyanalyzetheconsequencesofInternet

deprivation–measuredseparatelyforindividualelementsofpoliticalparticipation.Acampussetting

possessesmanybenefitsaswell,sinceitpossessesmanyoftheresourcesthatwouldbeavailableina

widersetting,suchaslargenumbersofpeople,authoritativesources,newspapers,librariesandmore.

Thereisalsospecialinterestinconductingthisexperimentamongastudentpopulationsincethisisa

segmentofthepopulationknownas‘digitalnatives’–peoplewhohaveneverknownatimewithout

Internetaccess,andforwhomwehypothesizethatInternetdeprivationwillhaveagreatereffectthanfor

oldergenerations.Finally,thisinitialcontrolledexperimentlaysthegroundworkforthesubsequentcyber-

blackoutresearchthattakesplaceinthefield.Ourfindingsinthefirstexperimenttestedthecreativityof

participantstoseewhethertheywereabletorealizebasicrightsunderconditionsofInternetdeprivation.

Themotivationinthiscasewasfinancial,withrewardsofferedforparticipantswhocouldovercomethe

lackofInternetaccess.Whilethisassistedinpinpointingtheeffectofdeprivationonindividualrights,we

recognizethatthemotivation

6.EthicalandResearchChallenges

Ourresearchispremisedonliteraturethatatteststothenegativepsychologicalemotionsstemmingfrom

prolongedInternetdeprivation.Evenourfirst‘scavengerhunt’experiment,whichreliedonabriefperiod

ofdeprivationofonehour,recordedasmallbutstatisticallysignificantincreaseinself-reportedfeelingsof

frustration,angerandirritation.Asweprogressonwardtofurtherexperimentsthatentaillongerperiods

ofdeprivation(measuredinthehours,daysandweeks),wewillneedtobeawareofconductingthe

researchinsuchawaytolimittheextentofthepsychologicalharmcausedbythemanipulationof

Internetdeprivation.

Thesecondfieldexperimentalsoraisesanumberofethicaldilemmasconsideringthatcyberblackoutsare

likelytooccurincontextsofcivildissent(sincethisisthetimeduringwhichgovernmenttypicallyapply

someformofInternetshutdown).Researchinaconflictzoneposesbothmethodologicalandethical

challenges.Theguidingethicalprincipleof‘donoharm’iscomplicatedinthesesituationsdueto

heightenedpoliticalpolarization,theoftentimespresenceofsecurityandintelligenceforces,thegeneral

unpredictabilityofeventsandtheprecarioussecuritysituationformanyresidents(Wood,2006).Forour

particularresearch,whereprotestersareoftentryingtocircumventgovernmentcontrolsoninformation

distribution,wearekeenlyawarethattheresearchfindingscouldposeadangertoindividualrespondents

totheextentthattheycanbeidentified.Thisleadstoanumberofethicaldictatesanddilemmasthatwe

willneedtoremainintheforefrontofourmindswhenplanningandexecutingtheexperiment.Firstly,the

namesofparticipantswillnotbestored.Atnotimewillparticipantsbeaskedtorecordtheirnames,and

identifyinginformationsuchasIPaddresseswillbeerased.Secondly,researchsubjectswillneedto

providefullconsenttotheirparticipationinfullunderstandingofthepotentialrisksandbenefits.Thisis

necessaryduetoethicalconstraints,anditwillalsobeimportanttoverifytheidentityoftheresearch

teamsothatparticipantsfeelcomfortablesharingpotentiallysensitiveinformation.Weareawarethat

duringaperiodofgovernment-initiatedInternetshutdowns,aresearchteamaskinginformationabout

howcitizenscircumventgovernmentrestrictionsmayraiseredflags.Thirdly,securingthecollecteddata

willbeofparamountimportance,particularlysensitivedatathatmighthavepoliticalimplicationsinthe

handsofcertaininterestedparties.Securingthedataincludesconstructingsecuredatacollection

methodologyandstorageprocesses,aswellasprocessesforsendingthedataoutsideofthecountry.

Fourthly,alaterethicaldilemmawillrevolvearoundthepublicationofconclusions.Ifwediscoverthat

largesegmentsofthepopulationisutilizingaparticularmethodtoavoidInternetshutdowns,weface

ethicalconcernsinpublishingthisdata,andbringingittotheattentionoftheauthorities.Thisisnot

somethingthatwecanresolveinadvance,sincenotallcircumventionmethodswillsusceptibleto

heightenedenforcement,butwenotethispossibilityasapotentialethicalscenario.

AmoreappliedresearchchallengeforthissecondInternetshutdownexperimentwillbetoefficiently

identifyandtakeadvantageofbriefperiodsofcyberblackouts.Duetotheverynatureofgovernment-

initiatedInternetshutdowns,wecannotknowinadvancewhereandwhensuchashutdownwilltake

place.Ourexpectationisthatfollowingthedistributionofthepre-questionnaires,ashutdownwilltake

placeinatleastoneofthelocationswithinaperiodof6-12monthsinordertoensurethatthedataisstill

viable.ThoughthisdoesentailariskthattherewillbenoInternetshutdown,webelievethata)itisarisk

worthtakingduetothevaluableanduniquenatureofthedata;andb)thestepswehavetakento

mitigatetherisksbyselectingmultiplelocationstoconducttheresearchbasedonvariablesthatwill

increasethelikelihoodofapositiveresultwilldiminishthepossibilityofachievingnoresult.

ReferencesAlmstrom&Liddicoat(2012).APCsubmissiontotheUNSpecialRapporteurontheRightstoFreedomofPeacefulAssembly.AssociationforProgressiveCommunication(APC).https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/apc-submission-un-special-rapporteur-rights-freedo.Arafa,M.,&Armstrong,C.(2016).FacebooktoMobilize,TwittertoCoordinateProtests,andYouTubetoTelltheWorld":NewMedia,Cyberactivism,andtheArabSpring.JournalofGlobalInitiatives:Policy,Pedagogy,Perspective,10(1),6.Bakker,T.P.,&DeVreese,C.H.(2011).Goodnewsforthefuture?Youngpeople,Internetuse,andpoliticalparticipation.Communicationresearch,38(4),451-470.Balkin,JackM.(2004).DigitalSpeechandDemocraticCulture:ATheoryofFreedomofExpressionfortheInformationSociety.NewYorkUniversityLawReview,79(1)).Balkin,JackM.(2014).Old-School/New-SchoolSpeechRegulation.FacultyScholarshipSeries,Paper4877,http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4877.Bimber,B.,&Copeland,L.(2013).DigitalmediaandtraditionalpoliticalparticipationovertimeintheUS.JournalofInformationTechnology&Politics,10(2),125-137.Bimber,B.,Cunill,M.C.,Copeland,L.,&Gibson,R.(2015).Digitalmediaandpoliticalparticipation:Themoderatingroleofpoliticalinterestacrossactsandovertime.SocialScienceComputerReview,33(1),21-42.Block,J.J.(2008).IssuesforDSM-V:InternetAddiction.AmericanJournalofPsychiatry,165(3),306–307.https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.07101556\Boulianne,S.(2011).Stimulatingorreinforcingpoliticalinterest:Usingpaneldatatoexaminereciprocaleffectsbetweennewsmediaandpoliticalinterest.PoliticalCommunication,28(2),147-162.Bryce,Hannah,‘TheInternetofThingsWillBeEvenMoreVulnerabletoCyberAttacks’(2017)ChathamHouseTheRoyalInstituteofInternationalAffairs.Retrievedfromwww.chathamhouse.org.Chander,A.(2011).JasmineRevolutions.CornellL.Rev.,97,1505.CharltonJP,DanforthIDW.Distinguishingaddictionandhighengagementinthecontextofonlinegameplaying.ComputersinHumanBehavior.2007;23(3):1531–1548.Coleman,S.,&Blumler,J.G.(2009).TheInternetanddemocraticcitizenship:Theory,practiceandpolicy.CambridgeUniversityPress.Conaghan,Jim(2015,September15).NewspaperDigitalAudiencePeaks.NewsMediaAlliance,accessedonJuly29,2016,retrievedfromhttp://www.naa.org/Trends-and-Numbers/Newspaper-Websites/Newspaper-Web-Audience.aspx.CouncilofEurope,DeclarationbytheCommitteeofMinistersontheProtectionofFreedomofExpressionandInformationandFreedomofAssemblyandAssociationwithRegardtoInternetDomainNamesand

NameStrings,(adoptedbytheCommitteeofMinisterson21September2011),para3,availableathttps://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835805;CouncilofEurope,‘Committeeofexpertsoncross-borderflowofInternettrafficandInternetfreedom(MSI-INT),DraftreportonfreedomofassemblyandassociationontheInternet’(11May2015),accessedat:https://rm.coe.int/draft-report-on-freedom-of-assembly-and-association-on-the-internet/1680744cfb.Cram,I.(2015).CitizenJournalists:NewerMedia,RepublicanMomentsandtheConstitution.EdwardElgarPublishingDash,Nivedita(2016,February19).JatreservationprotestinHaryana:MobileinternetservicesblockedinRohtak.IndiaToday.Retrievedfromwww.indiatoday.intoday.inDearden,Lizzie(2015,October10).Ankaraterrorattack:TurkeycensorsmediacoverageofbombingsasTwitterandFacebook'blocked'.Independent.Retrievedfromhttp://www.independent.co.uk/Deloitte,‘TheeconomicimpactofdisruptionstoInternetconnectivity’(2016).Availableathttp://globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/TheEconomic-Impact-of-Disruptions-to-Internet-Connectivity-Deloitte.pdfvanDeursen,Alexander,Helsper,EllenJ,‘AnuancedunderstandingofInternetuseandnon-useamongtheelderly’(2015)30Europeanjournalofcommunication2,171.Dutton,W.,&Blank,G.(2015).CulturesontheInternet.EuropeanCommission(2012).DigitalAgendaScoreboard2012.Luxembourg:publicationsofficeoftheEuropeanUniondoi:10.2759/83934.http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/scoreboard_life_online.pdf.Frenkel,Sheera(2018,January2).IranianAuthoritiesBlockAccesstoSocialMediaTools.TheNewYorkTimes.Retrievedfromhttp://www.nytimes.comGeorge,J.,&Leidner,D.(2018,January).DigitalActivism:aHierarchyofPoliticalCommitment.InProceedingsofthe51stHawaiiInternationalConferenceonSystemSciences.Halupka,M.(2014).Clicktivism:Asystematicheuristic.Policy&Internet,6(2),115-132.Howard,P.,Agarwal,S.,Hussain,M.“TheDictators’DigitalDilemma:WhenDoStatesDisconnectTheirDigitalNetworks?”BrookingsInstitutionIssuesinTechnologyInnovation,October,2011.Huang,C.(2010).Internetuseandpsychologicalwell-being.CYBERPSYCHOLOGY,BEHAVIOR,ANDSOCIALNETWORKING,13(3).https://doi.org/10.1145/2739043King,DonaldW.,Tenopir,Carol,HansenMontgomery,CarolandAerni,SarahE.(2003).Patternsofjournalusebyfacultyatthreediverseuniversities.D–LibMagazine,9(10).KrautR,PattersonM,LundmarkV,etal.Internetparadox:asocialtechnologythatreducessocialinvolvementandpsy-chologicalwell-being?AmericanPsychologist1998;53:1017–31.

LaRue,F.(2011).ReportoftheSpecialRapporteuronthepromotionandprotectionoftherighttofreedomofopinionandexpression.Lee,David‘RussiaandUkraineincyber'stand-off'’,BBCNews,5March2014.Leung,L.(2010).EffectsofInternetconnectednessandinformationliteracyonqualityoflife.Socialindicatorsresearch,98(2),273-290.LuTan,NengWang,‘FutureInternet:TheInternetofthings’,3rdInternationalConferenceAdvancedComputerTheoryandEngineering(ICACTE),2010,vol.5,pp.5-376.Luther,Judy(2002).Whitepaperonelectronicjournalusagestatistics.SerialsLibrarian41(2).MeschGS.FamilyrelationsandtheInternet:exploringafamilyboundariesapproach.JournalofFamilyCommunication2006;6:119–38.Mesch,G.S.(2016).Ethnicoriginandaccesstoelectronichealthservices.Healthinformaticsjournal,22(4),791-803.Milbourne,ConstanceC.,andJeffreyS.Wilkinson."ChasingInfinity:TheFearofDisconnecting."AmericanCommunicationJournal17.2(2015).Morozov,Evegeny(2011).TheNetDelusion:TheDarkSideofInternetFreedom.NewYork:PublicAffairs.Müller,K.W.,Dreier,M.,Beutel,M.E.,Duven,E.,Giralt,S.,&Wölfling,K.(2016).Ahiddentypeofinternetaddiction?Intenseandaddictiveuseofsocialnetworkingsitesinadolescents.ComputersinHumanBehavior,55,172-177.Neumayer,C.,&Svensson,J.(2016).Activismandradicalpoliticsinthedigitalage:Towardsatypology.Convergence,22(2),131-146.Nie,N.H.(2001).Sociability,interpersonalrelations,andtheInternet:Reconcilingconflictingfindings.Americanbehavioralscientist,45(3),420-435.Norris,Pippa,Digitaldivide:Civicengagement,informationpoverty,andtheInternetworldwide(CambridgeUniversityPress,2001).OstermanSurvey,‘UnderstandingtheDepthoftheRansomwareProblem’,2016,Retrievedfromhttps://www.malwarebytes.com/surveys/ransomware/Packinghamv.StateofNorthCarolina15U.S.1194(2016).PewResearchCenter.PoliticsFactSheet.http://www.pewInternet.org/fact-sheets/politics-fact-sheet/,lastaccessed4January2016.ReutersStaff(2016,May2).BraziljudgeordersWhatsAppblocked,affecting100millionusers.Reuters.Retrievedfromhttp://www.reuters.com/.

Romano,M.,Osborne,L.A.,Truzoli,R.,&Reed,P.(2013).DifferentialPsychologicalImpactofInternetExposureonInternetAddicts.PLoSONE,8(2),8–11.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055162Searcey&Essomba(2017,February10).AfricanNationsIncreasinglySilenceInternettoStemProtests.TheNewYorkTimes.Retrievedfromhttp://www.nytimes.comSilcock,Rachel(2001).WhatisE-Government?ParliamentaryAffairs54(1).Skoric,M.M.(2012).Whatisslackaboutslacktivism.Methodologicalandconceptualissuesincyberactivismresearch,77,77-92.Starcevic,V.,&Aboujaoude,E.(2017).Internetaddiction:reappraisalofanincreasinglyinadequateconcept.CNSSpectrums,22(1),7–13.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852915000863Subramanian,Ramesh‘TheGrowthofGlobalInternetCensorshipandCircumvention:ASurvey’(2011)11CommunicationsoftheIIMA2.Tenenbaum,JasonM.(2014,June).IsThereaProtectedRighttoAccesstheInternet?InternationalJournalofConstitutionalLawBlog,availableat:http://www.iconnectblog.com/2014/06/is-there-a-protected-right-to-access-the-Internet.Tufekci,Z.(2017).TwitterandTearGas:ThePowerandFragilityofNetworkedProtest.YaleUniversityPress.UnitedNations,HumanRightsCouncil(2011),ReportoftheSpecialRapporteuronthepromotionandprotectionoftherighttofreedomofopinionandexpression,FrankLaRue,16May.A/HRC/17/27.UnitedNations,HumanRightsCouncil(2016),Thepromotion,protectionandenjoymentofhumanrightsontheInternet.27June.A/HRC/32/L.20.Wagner,Adam,‘IsInternetaccessahumanright?’,TheGuardian,11January2012.Wellman,Carl‘TheProliferationofRights:MoralProgressorEmptyRhetoric?’(1999)WestviewPress..West,Darrell,M.,“Internetshutdownscostcountries$2.4billionlastyear”,CenterforTechnologyInnovationatBrookings,October2016.Wood,E.J.(2006).Theethicalchallengesoffieldresearchinconflictzones.Qualitativesociology,29(3),373-386.YellepeddiVijayalakshmi,NeethuNatarajan,P.Manimegalai,SuvanamBabu,‘StudyonEmergingTrendsinMalwareVariants’(2017)117InternationalJournalofPureandAppliedMathematics22.Yoo,Y.-S.,Cho,O.-H.,&Cha,K.-S.(2014).Associationsbetweenoveruseoftheinternetandmentalhealthinadolescents.Nursing&HealthSciences,16(2),193–200.https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12086Young,K.S.1999.Internetaddiction:symptoms,evaluationandtreatment.InVanDeCreekL.JacksonT.L.(Ed.),Innovationsinclinicalpractice,(pp.19–31).Sarasota,FL:ProfessionalResourcePress.Vol.17.

Table 1: T-Test Results for the Effect of Internet Deprivation on the Completion of Tasks

M SD t df p d Task 1: Expression

Treatment 2.81 1.00 2.773 58 .007 .72

Control 3.46 .79 Task 2: Association

Treatment 2.88 1.26 3.294 58 .002 .87

Control 3.79 .79 Task 3: Information

Treatment 2.50 1.41 2.416 58 0.19 .63

Control 3.32 1.19 Note: The control condition reflects full Internet access; the treatment condition reflects no Internet access.

Table 2: Chi-Square Tests; treatment effect on task completion

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12.13.

b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

Task 1: Expression Task 2: Association Task 3: Information Value df Asymp.

Sig. (2-sided)

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square

6.459 a 1 .011 14.592 a

1 .000 4.659 a

1 .031

Continuity Correction b

5.200 1 .023 12.544 1 .000 3.600 1 .058

Likelihood Ratio

6.563 3 .010 16.274 1 .000 4.745 1 .029

Linear-by-Linear Association

6.351 1 .012 14.348 1 .000 4.581 1 .032

N of Valid Cases

60 60 60

Table 3: Results of Logistic Regression on Task Success

Task 1: Expression Task 2: Association Task 3: Information

Step 1 Model: χ2 (df = 1) = 6.56, p = .01 χ2 (df = 1) = 16.27, p < .001 χ2 (df = 1) = 4.75, p = .03

b SE p Odds Ratio b SE p Odds

Ratio b SE p Odds Ratio

Condition (Control =0, Treatment = 1)

-1.37** .55 .01 .25 -2.69** .82 .001 .07 -1.17* .55 .03 .31

Step 2 Model: χ2 (df = 7) = 14.89, p < .001 χ2 (df = 7) = 24.41, p < .001 χ2 (df = 7) = 9.23, p < .24

b SE p Odds Ratio b SE p Odds

Ratio b SE p Odds Ratio

Condition -1.61** .64 .011 .20 -3.24** 1.00 .001 .04 -1.91* .60 .04 .30

Age -0.39 .50 .43 .68 .30 .54 .58 1.35 .60 .51 .24 1.82

Gender 1.31* .68 .05 3.72 1.33 .79 .09 3.78 .94 .61 .12 2.55

Education Level 0.32 .45 .48 .73 -1.42* .69 .04 .24 -.11 .42 .79 .90

Political Identification -0.15 .20 .45 .86 -.19 .23 .42 .83 .02 .18 .91 1.02

Family Income -.05 .14 .75 .96 .02 .17 .88 1.03 .05 .13 .72 1.05

Average Daily Internet Usage .41 .48 .39 1.51 -.05 .51 .01 .95 .26 .42 .53 1.30

*p < .05, **p < .01

Table 4: Breakdown of Participant Scoring Per Task

Task 1 Control

Task 1 Treatment

Task 1 Total

Task 2 Control

Task 2 Treatment

Task 2 Total

Task 3 Control

Task 3 Treatment

Task 3 Total

1 point – Unable to complete task and unable to conceive of how to complete task

4% 13% 8% 7% 25% 17% 18% 41% 30%

2 points – Unable to complete task, but able to conceive of how to complete task if not restricted to the controlled experimental environment

7% 22% 15% 0% 9% 5% 4% 13% 8%

3 points – Partially able to complete task

29% 38% 33% 0% 19% 10% 7% 3% 5%

4 points – Fully able to complete task

61% 28% 43% 93% 47% 68% 71% 44% 57%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Note: The control condition reflects full Internet access; the treatment condition reflects no Internet access.