On Memorial Day US Government Disturbing Proof They're Quietly Deleting Internet

US Government Yes They Really Are Deleting The Internet Information Part Two And Killing Tens Of Millions Of Peoples Now And In The Past. This Needs To Go Viral. In George Orwell's Book “1984” He Wrote That “Every Record Has Been Destroyed Or Falsified, Every Book Rewritten, Every Picture Has Been Repainted, Every Statue And Street Building Has Been Renamed, Every Date Has Been Altered. History Has Stopped.” So If You Type In " I Want To Get Information About Different Type's Of Covid-19 Or Covid-X Treatments For My Own Health It Is Blocked And Or Labeled Misinformation By US Government And You Can Not See It On The Internet At ALL ! So How Can You Or How Can I Do My Own Research At ALL If It Is Blocked For Me To See In The First Place From The Internet ?

Show more

Different types of covid-19 or covid-x treatments
COVID-19 treatments aim to alleviate symptoms, reduce the severity of the disease, and prevent complications. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have accelerated research on various treatment options. Here are some of the current treatments:

Immune Modulators: These medications minimize the effects of an overactive immune system response, which some COVID-19 patients experience.

Nirmatrelvir with Ritonavir: This antiviral medicine is recommended for patients at high risk of severe illness.

Molnupiravir: This antiviral medicine is also recommended for patients at high risk of severe illness.

Remdesivir: This antiviral medicine is used to treat severe COVID-19 cases.
Antiviral Medications: These medications, such as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir,
molnupiravir, and remdesivir, are used to treat COVID-19.
Symptom Relief Medications: These medications, such as pain relievers and antihistamines, are used to alleviate symptoms like fever, headache, and congestion.
Treatment Options for High-Risk Patients

The NIH and the CDC recommend the following treatments for patients at high risk of severe illness:

Nirmatrelvir with Ritonavir: This antiviral medicine is recommended for patients at high risk of severe illness.

Molnupiravir: This antiviral medicine is also recommended for patients at high risk of severe illness.

Remdesivir: This antiviral medicine is used to treat severe COVID-19 cases.
Treatment Options for Mild to Moderate COVID-19

For patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment options may include:

Antiviral Medications: These medications, such as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, molnupiravir, and remdesivir, are used to treat COVID-19.

Symptom Relief Medications: These medications, such as pain relievers and antihistamines, are used to alleviate symptoms like fever, headache, and congestion.

Treatment Options for COVID-19 Rebound

COVID-19 rebound is a return of symptoms or a new positive test 3-7 days after recovering from the initial illness. Treatment options for COVID-19 rebound include:

Antiviral Medications: These medications, such as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, molnupiravir, and remdesivir, are used to treat COVID-19.

Symptom Relief Medications: These medications, such as pain relievers and antihistamines, are used to alleviate symptoms like fever, headache, and congestion.

It is essential to consult with a healthcare provider to determine the best treatment option for your specific situation.

https://aspr.hhs.gov/COVID-19/Treatments/Pages/Possible-Treatment-Options-for-COVID19.aspx

https://www.goodrx.com/conditions/covid-19/coronavirus-treatments-on-the-way

Exposes World’s Most Dangerous Lie Covid-X-24 Scam-Demic Death Wide World - https://rumble.com/v4iuxp3-exposes-worlds-most-dangerous-lie-covid-x-24-scam-demic-death-wide-world.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20230226151842/https://www.exposingtheirlies.com/post/some-covid-19-horror-stories-you-may-have-missed

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6935295-NIH-Moderna-Confidential-Agreements

https://therealtruthnetworkcom.wordpress.com/2022/02/04/are-hospital-covid-protocols-killing-people/

COVID-X-24 Blood and Non Vaccines Blood and Secret Pedophile's Blood Bank U.S.A. - https://rumble.com/v2dye2c-covid-19-blood-and-non-vaccines-blood-and-secret-pedophiles-blood-bank-u.s..html

https://dearpandemic.org/vaccines-and-donating-blood/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjh.17842

https://www.redcrossblood.org/local-homepage/news/article/covid-19-vaccination-guide-blood-donation.html

https://dearpandemic.org/blood-in-short-supply/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK138208/

https://ccpp19.org/index.html

You Will Never Trust Another Celebrity After Watching This Corrupt U.S.A. Governments - https://rumble.com/v2kq5mw-you-will-never-trust-another-celebrity-after-watching-this-corrupt-u.s.a.-g.html

Click on the links below for the full story and or Type it into a Web Base Search ! https://web.archive.org/web/20230226151842/https://www.exposingtheirlies.com/post/some-covid-19-horror-stories-you-may-have-missed

Pandemic Of The Unvaccinated People Will Threaten The Live Of Vaccinated People? - https://rumble.com/v2qf2nk-pandemic-of-the-unvaccinated-people-will-threaten-the-live-of-vaccinated-pe.html

Healthy Athletes Dropping Dead of Cardiac Arrest for No Reason A New Bioweapon ? - https://rumble.com/v2dvl62-healthy-athletes-dropping-dead-of-cardiac-arrest-for-no-reason-a-new-biowea.html

Gates from Hell - Like you Never Knew Him (Bill Gates) Before ? Corbett Report - https://rumble.com/v2afwv2-gates-from-hell-like-you-never-knew-him-bill-gates-before-corbett-report-w0.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20230224153841/https://healthimpactnews.com/2022/76789-deaths-6089773-injuries-reported-in-u-s-and-european-databases-following-covid-19-vaccines/

The unvaccinated are a risk to all of us. Why COVID-19 Shot Is Not Safe ? Nuremberg Code ? Agent Orange ? Anthrax Vaccine ?

https://rumble.com/v2affqe-why-covid-19-shot-is-not-safe-nuremberg-code-agent-orange-anthrax-vaccine-.html

Pedophile Bill Gates Is Lying To You On Vaccine Patent Protection # WO2020060606A1 - https://rumble.com/v2bvqos-pedophile-bill-gates-is-lying-to-you-on-vaccine-patent-protection-wo2020060.html

COVID-19 Vaccines Will Kill You? Animation What Happens If You Get Coronavirus Effect - https://rumble.com/v2dt6zk-covid-19-vaccines-will-kill-you-animation-what-happens-if-you-get-coronavir.html

Real Parallel Worlds Today - NAZI vs U.S.A. - COVID-19 - ANTIFA - SS vs FBI vs DEATH - https://rumble.com/v3g2oan-real-parallel-worlds-today-nazi-vs-u.s.a.-covid-19-antifa-ss-vs-fbi-vs-deat.html

Death To You And Your Family... Its For The Greater Good. Death To You And America... Its For The Greater Good. Its A Pandemic Of The Unvaccinated People Will Threaten The Live Of Vaccinated People... Yes Its For The Greater Good. You Will Never Trust Another Celebrity After Watching This Covil-19 Corrupt U.S.A. Governments... Yes Its For The Greater Good. Yes Its A Plandemic For New World Order... Yes Its For The Greater Good.

World Economic Forum Great Reset Medical Tyranny, Woke Culture, Green Agenda - https://rumble.com/v3jfm06-world-economic-forum-great-reset-medical-tyranny-woke-culture-green-agenda.html

So After Working 22 year software engineer. I've worked building custom search engines and large databases. This is 100% deliberate. It actually takes a lot of extra code to limit search results like this and specifically hand pick the articles to be displayed. This isn't a bug or a data issue (anyone who said that has very limited experience in software). This is purely out of desire to control thought, which in turn controls you. I just recently finished an information systems course that was taught by a dude that didn't really understand how the internet works anymore, mainly basing the course on systems that died over a decade ago. It was interesting to hear him explain how the internet and information might "advance" in the future, knowing that he probably wrote his lectures 15 years ago. The net has been cannibalized for the sake of convenience, and I wonder where exactly the logical conclusion to all this ends up.

The search results suggest that the US government has taken steps to restrict false information online, with 55% of Americans supporting the government taking steps to restrict false information, even if it limits people’s freedom to publish or access information. This raises concerns about the potential impact on freedom of speech and the internet.

Internet Shutdowns and Censorship
Governments around the world, including the US, have been increasingly resorting to internet shutdowns in times of crisis, citing public safety or the need to curb the spread of misinformation. However, these measures can have severe consequences, including limiting people’s ability to express themselves freely, disrupting the economy, and restricting access to essential services like healthcare.

Tools for Circumventing Censorship
In response to internet censorship, a growing number of tools and technologies have emerged to help individuals bypass government restrictions. These include mesh networks, virtual private networks (VPNs), and proxies, which can help activists and ordinary citizens access information and communicate with each other.

The Importance of Protecting Free Speech
The US government’s actions on internet censorship and free speech are crucial in maintaining a healthy and open online environment. It is essential to strike a balance between protecting people from false information and preserving their right to free speech and access to information.

Conclusion
While the US government has taken steps to restrict false information online, it is crucial to ensure that these measures do not compromise freedom of speech and the internet. It is essential to promote transparency, accountability, and the development of tools and technologies that can help individuals circumvent censorship and access information.

They Really Are *Deleting* the Internet
The notion that the internet is being “deleted” is a topic of ongoing debate. While it is true that individuals can take steps to minimize their online presence and delete certain online accounts, the idea that the entire internet is being erased is an exaggeration.

What Gets Deleted When You Delete Your Browsing History

When you delete your browsing history in Internet Explorer, you are removing records of your online activities, including:

Favorites: The list of sites you’ve saved as favorites will be deleted.
Search history: Your search queries and results will be erased.
Cookies: Temporary files stored on your device will be removed.
Why You Can’t Completely Remove Yourself from the Internet

Even if you delete your online accounts and browsing history, there are still ways for companies to collect and store your personal data. This is because:

Government agencies and courts have been posting public records online since the 1990s.
Data brokers collect and sell your personal information.
Social media platforms and search engines like Google store your online activities.
Ways to Minimize Your Digital Footprint

While it is impossible to completely remove yourself from the internet, you can take steps to minimize your digital footprint:

Delete old social media posts and accounts.
Use privacy settings to limit data collection.
Use a VPN to mask your IP address.
Regularly review and delete your browsing history.
Consider using a pseudonym or alias online.
Conclusion

While it is possible to delete certain aspects of your online presence, the idea that the internet is being “deleted” is an exaggeration. The internet is a vast and complex network that is constantly evolving, and it is unlikely that it will be completely erased. By taking steps to minimize your digital footprint, you can maintain a level of online privacy and security.

For the fifth year in a row, internet freedom declined in the United States. The spread of conspiracy theories and manipulated content about the November 2020 elections threatened the core of American democracy, culminating in outgoing president Donald Trump’s incitement of a violent attack on the US Capitol in a bid to halt certification of the election results on January 6, 2021. While the internet in the United States remains vibrant, diverse, and largely free from state censorship, government authorities in multiple cases responded to nationwide protests against racial injustice in 2020 with intrusive surveillance, harassment, and arrests. Separately, a number of new policies and proposed laws signaled a potential shift in approach by the new administration of President Joseph Biden, including his withdrawal of one Trump-era executive order aimed at reducing protections against intermediary liability and a pair of others that would have effectively banned the Chinese-owned platforms WeChat and TikTok.

The United States is a federal republic whose people benefit from a vibrant political system, a strong rule-of-law tradition, robust freedoms of expression and religious belief, and a wide array of other civil liberties. However, in recent years its democratic institutions have suffered erosion, as reflected in partisan pressure on the electoral process, bias and dysfunction in the criminal justice system, flawed and discriminatory policies on immigration and asylum seekers, and growing disparities in wealth, economic opportunity, and political influence.

https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-states/freedom-net/2021

The Government’s Secret Plan to Shut Off Cellphones and the Internet, Explained. “I find it hard to imagine why an internet kill switch would ever be a good idea, short of some science fiction scenario.”

This month, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Department of Homeland Security must make its plan to shut off the internet and cellphone communications available to the American public. You, of course, may now be thinking: What plan?! Though President Barack Obama swiftly disapproved of ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak turning off the internet in his country (to quell widespread civil disobedience) in 2011, the US government has the authority to do the same sort of thing, under a plan that was devised during the George W. Bush administration. Many details of the government’s controversial “kill switch” authority have been classified, such as the conditions under which it can be implemented and how the switch can be used. But thanks to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), DHS has to reveal those details by December 12—or mount an appeal. (The smart betting is on an appeal, since DHS has fought to release this information so far.) Yet here’s what we do know about the government’s “kill switch” plan:

What is a kill switch? A kill switch refers to the government’s authority to disconnect commercial and private wireless networks—affecting both cellphones and the internet—in the event of an emergency, such as a viable threat of a terrorist attack.

How does a kill switch work? There isn’t any kind of big red button the Obama administration can push to turn off the wireless networks in the United States. Instead, there are a few ways the federal government could exercise its power to shut down and restore internet and cellphone service (see below). It’s also unlikely that a “kill switch” would cause a nationwide blackout. Instead, the government is explicitly authorized to target a “localized area”—such as a bridge—or potentially an “entire metropolitan area,” according to a recent Government Accountability Office report. (Both DHS and the White House declined to comment for this article.)

Is it harder for the US government to kill cellphones or the internet? Communications experts say that killing phone service is probably easier, because there are only a few companies the government has to deal with to smother cellphone communications (the kill switch doesn’t generally govern land lines). Most mobile-phone service passes through physical connection points that are controlled by the big-name phone companies, including AT&T and Verizon. The US government would essentially have to compel these companies to turn off their cellphone towers. The feds could also use cellphone jammers to interrupt service in a localized area.

Experts say that shutting off the internet could be tougher. There are thousands of internet service providers in the United States. According to Allan Friedman, research director of the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institution, in Egypt, the government spent a lot of time prior to the anti-Mubarek protests making sure all of the nation’s internet service providers ran through a single entryway, so that it could easily shut things off. China is working on nationalized routing. That’s not the case in the United States, where trying to cut off internet in one office in Washington, DC, could mean trying to map cables in Baltimore and Virginia. “If the government attempted to disrupt the largest physical networks in the US, it would also likely disrupt its own communications,” Friedman notes. But Harold Feld, vice president at Public Knowledge, an advocacy group focused on communications and technology policy, says that big internet companies still control a large portion of subscribers in the United States, and if the top 10 service providers cooperated with the government, “you could shut things down fairly easily.”

Is it legal for the Obama administration to activate a kill switch? Yep, and kill switches aren’t new. In 1918, a congressional joint resolution authorized the president to assume control of US telegraph systems, in order to operate them during World War I. Then, in 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Communications Act, which decreed, “Upon proclamation by the President that there exists war or a threat of war, or a state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency, or in order to preserve the neutrality of the United States, the President, if he deems it necessary in the interest of national security or defense, may suspend or amend” both wireless radio and phone services, which means it’s not clear whether this could apply to internet service (although the Federal Communications Commission has used that argument before, when deregulating internet service over telephone lines in 2005).

What is clear is that in 2006, the Bush administration entered into a secret agreement with telecom giants and came up with a specific plan as to when and how the government can actually shut down these networks—called Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 303. This is the plan that the US government is required to release under the federal district court ruling. In 2011, the White House asserted again that the administration has the legal authority to control private communications systems in the United States during national emergencies. And in 2012, President Obama reaffirmed that DHS could seize private facilities and shut down communications in a July executive order.

Why would the US government need to exercise a kill switch? The US government has always considered it a good idea to have full control over communications networks during a war. During peacetime, government officials could conclude that suspending cellphone service on a particular channel might stop would-be terrorists from setting off one or more bombs. There’s certainly the chance that some government official might consider shutting down communications to stop or hamper protests. This did happen in 2011 in San Francisco’s subway stations (see below), although not on the federal level. It’s possible that a wide-scale cyberattack that targets major financial and government institutions could require an immediate shutdown of internet service. In 2010, Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) attempted to pass legislation that would have allowed the president to take over private computer systems during a “national cyberemergency” for such a purpose. The controversial bill didn’t pass.

Critics contend that activating any kind of kill switch will do more harm than good. “I find it hard to imagine why an internet kill switch would ever be a good idea, short of some science fiction scenario wherein the network comes alive a la Terminator/Skynet,” Feld says. “At this point, so much of our critical infrastructure runs on the internet that a ‘kill switch’ would do more harm than anything short of a nuclear strike. it would be like cutting off our own head to escape someone pulling our hair.” The same argument applies to smothering cellphone service. “The benefit of people being able to communicate on their cellphones in times of crisis is enormous, and cutting that off is in and of itself potentially very dangerous,” argues Eva Galperin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Has the government ever turned off cell phones or the internet? Yes—but the only known reports concern cell service. In 2005, shortly after suicide bombers attacked the London tube, federal authorities disabled cell networks in four major New York tunnels. The action was reportedly taken to prevent bomb detonation via cellphone, and according to a National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee review, it “was undertaken without prior notice to wireless carriers or the public.” (In an April statement to Mother Jones, Verizon denied have any role in shutting down cell service in New York.) In 2009, during Obama’s inauguration, the feds used devices that blocked cellphones from receiving signals to prevent bomb detonation. In 2011, officials for the San Francisco transit system cut off cellphone service in four Bay Area Rapid Transit stations for several hours to preempt a planned protest over BART police fatally shooting a homeless man.

What are the constitutional problems? Civil liberties advocates argue that kill switches violate the First Amendment and pose a problem because they aren’t subject to rigorous judicial and congressional oversight. “There is no court in the loop at all, at any stage in the SOP 303 process,” according to the Center for Democracy and Technology. “The Executive Branch, untethered by the checks and balances of court oversight, clear instruction from Congress, or transparency to the public, is free to act as it will and in secret.” David Jacobs of EPIC says, “Cutting off communications imposes a prior restraint on speech, so the First Amendment imposes the strictest of limitations…We don’t know how DHS thinks [the kill switch] is consistent with the First Amendment.” He adds, “Such a policy, unbounded by clear rules and oversight, just invites abuse.”

What don’t we know about the kill switch plan? A lot. We don’t know the “series of questions” that help DHS determine whether it should activate a kill switch, how DHS will go about implementing the kill switch, how long a shutdown will last, and what the oversight protocols are. For example, Jacobs from EPIC says that, it appears that “DHS wouldn’t have to call up the president to implement this, he would be involved in the same indirect way that he is with all kinds of executive branch actions.” This information was requested in the FOIA lawsuit filed by (EPIC) and could be revealed as early as December. “Hopefully exposure of such a lunatic idea will allow the public to beat some common sense into these agencies,” says Feld.

From Caracas to Khartoum, protesters are leveraging the internet to organize online and stand up for their rights offline. In response, in the past year governments in Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Myanmar and Zimbabwe shut down the internet in all or some parts of their countries—perhaps with the hope that doing so would shut off their problems.

Governments are increasingly resorting to shutdowns in times of crisis, arguing they are necessary for public safety or curbing the spread of misinformation. But such sweeping measures are more like collective punishment than a tactical response. When the internet is off, people’s ability to express themselves freely is limited, the economy suffers, journalists struggle to upload photos and videos documenting government overreach and abuse, students are cut off from their lessons, taxes can’t be paid on time, and those needing health care cannot get consistent access.

While you might think authoritarian regimes are the ones turning off the internet, India—the world’s largest democracy—is the global leader in shutdowns. When it blocked access to the internet in Kashmir for months in late 2019, Indian officials justified the action by saying it was necessary to temporarily limit access to the internet during periods of crisis to avoid “permanent loss of life.” Four United Nations special rapporteurs condemned the move, warning that the shutdown in Kashmir was “inconsistent with the norms of necessity and proportionality.” Practically, at least one study, by a researcher at the Stanford Global Digital Policy Incubator, has found that shutdowns are actually counterproductive to deterring violent incidents; it tracked a quadrupling of violence when networks were disrupted as compared to cases where the internet stayed on.

Although governments dictate blackouts, internet service providers are the ones who implement them. Companies frequently justify compliance with these requests as a matter of following local law, suggesting that they risk losing their licenses if they don’t. But providers should heed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the most widely accepted set of rights standards for businesses, and reconsider their blind cooperation. After all, the UN Human Rights Council has unequivocally condemned measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online as a violation of international human rights law.

Authorities often try to justify shutdowns on flimsy legal grounds so it’s no surprise that lawsuits brought by activist lawyers in Sudan, Pakistan and Zimbabwe have successfully challenged blackouts. When confronted with state demands to broadly restrict access, internet service providers should consider filing similar suits themselves. At the very least, they should publish as much information as they can about the measures they impose in the interest of transparency or interpret requests to cause the least intrusive restrictions.

Shutdowns draw headlines, but subtler, equally devastating techniques to manipulate the internet deserve attention, too. Some authorities, such as in Chad, Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela, choose to block specific social media or messaging applications or prevent traffic to livestreaming platforms. Indonesia and Iran throttled internet speeds to a crawl, making manipulation difficult to detect. In Russia, a new “sovereign internet” law, which requires the internet to function without sending data to servers abroad, has laid the foundation for authorities there to require blocking anything from a single message or post to shutting down internet connectivity within the whole of Russia. Iran's National Information Network, a wholly separate internal network, may have allowed it to impose the most severe disconnection tracked by NetBlocks in any country in terms of its technical complexity and breadth earlier this month.

Even when the internet remains available, there’s a spectrum of overbroad laws and regulations that allow governments to pressure companies to censor the content on the web available to users in their jurisdictions. In China, creators of messaging and browser apps are required to include government filtering in all of their products. Germany’s NetzDG law threatens internet companies with hefty fines if they don’t take down “illegal” material, as defined in 22 provisions ranging widely from defamation of religions, insult of public office to threats of violence. The German approach is now being exported. Thirteen countries including the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, and Venezuela all cite it to justify their own regressive measures. Vietnam passed similar legislation and claims that Facebook now complies with most of its requests to restrict or remove content, although this has been difficult to verify.

Of course, it makes sense for internet companies to exercise vigilance over the content shared on their platforms. There is almost universal consensus in favor of the elimination of images of child pornography from the internet. In the face of public pressure and scrutiny, Facebook has taken steps to respond to attempts to use its platform to manipulate elections in the US and fan the flames of hate and violence in Myanmar. Following mass shootings livestreamed on Facebook Live or Twitch, internet companies and governments have developed policies like the Christchurch Call, encouraging the “elimination” of content deemed problematic in real time before its even uploaded.

But upload filters like these could easily be leveraged for prior restraint with no appeal. Since the definitions of “terrorism” or “extremism” are so vague, there’s a risk that many lawful acts of expression would be taken down before anyone sees them, especially in places like Egypt or Thailand, where repressive governments quell dissent by labelling and prosecuting their opponents as “terrorists” or purveyors of “fake news.”

While governments have had success getting material removed from the internet, individuals still struggle to have their requests resolved. Women and girls seeking removal of non-consensually shared intimate images, or looking for relief from online harassment, are especially vulnerable. Ironically, while companies and governments lead the charge in the fight against “extremism,” the largely female victims of harassment are being asked to carry much of the burden for the response themselves.

Organizations such as Access Now, which leads the #KeepItOn campaign, have devoted themselves to challenging blanket shutdowns and shaping conversations around more appropriate regulations. Nuanced approaches to intermediary liability could keep internet companies from censoring too much in an effort to avoid lawsuits. Companies should prioritize developing rights-respecting policies that support the safety of individuals online while protecting and promoting a free internet. Otherwise, they risk becoming tools of governments seeking to quash dissent and peaceful opposition.

In the meantime, there’s a growing cottage industry of products to help circumvent internet blackout restrictions, allowing sophisticated users to get around their governments’ roadblocks. Tools like mesh networks, virtual private networks, and proxies are now an indispensable part of activists’ toolboxes. In the cat-and-mouse game of internet censorship, let’s hope that activists can stay one step ahead of internet censorship, while those who incite hate do not.

Internet Censorship in 2024 The Impact of Internet Restrictions. When it was originally created, the internet was supposed to be a superhighway of information where everyone could communicate and access information free of any restrictions. Unfortunately, that’s not how it turned out to be. Depending on what country you’re in, the internet may not be so free. Some countries censor websites in their bid to control the flow of information. Others do so to uphold their ideals. In this article, we’re tackling the complex topic of internet censorship: what it is, how it works, and most importantly, what you can do about it.

What Is Internet Censorship?
Internet censorship is the practice of prohibiting or suppressing certain online content. When a type of content is censored, it generally becomes illegal and near-impossible to access or view as long as you’re within the jurisdiction of the censoring body. In some instances, publishing censored content is also illegal.

What’s Blocked
Censorship can affect all types of internet content, but generally speaking, these are the most common types of content being censored:

Porn
Torrenting
Social media
News media
Foreign websites
Where Censorship Happens
Censorship doesn’t just take place at the government level, with countries like China banning foreign websites under the Great Firewall. It can also happen at home, at work, and with the original source, your Internet Service Provider. However, depending on where it comes from, internet censorship can look any number of ways.

At Home: Home censorship typically comes in the form of parental controls, in which parents use blacklists and keyword blocking to keep their kids safe online. Blacklists are lists of websites that are filtered out; these databases are constantly being updated for the latest inappropriate web content. Keyword blocking, on the other hand, hides pages with certain keywords from view, controlling what kids see online. Parents can also use firewalls to hide content, which can be in the form of hardware or software.
At Work: Have you ever used the internet for personal reasons at work? If so, you’re part of 43 percent of workers who exaggerate their actual time working.1 That’s why businesses often take it upon themselves to censor the internet, not only to block inappropriate content but also to increase productivity. Many businesses use firewalls to block either particular web pages or entire domains.

Did You Know: Aside from being a poor use of work time, inappropriate content viewed in the workplace could be grounds for lawsuits. For example, if someone watches porn at work, it could leave the company liable for a sexual harassment lawsuit.

Internet Service Providers: Finally, censorship can also occur at the ground level, the Internet Service Providers themselves, otherwise known as ISPs. Theoretically, ISPs can block certain websites from view. However, net neutrality would mandate that ISPs can’t favor any particular company or website in the U.S. Without net neutrality, ISPs could charge a fee for usage of bandwidth, meaning that those websites will load faster. However, some people argue that this is a form of censorship, and it’s a topic widely debated in the U.S, but more on that a bit later.
How Does Internet Censorship Work?
Just as eggs can be served in many different ways, internet censorship can occur using different methods. But one thing that remains the same: it’s usually served cold.

DNS Tampering
DNS tampering is a technique that hackers can use to access DNS records. Once they gain access, they can make changes and let themselves into entire networks. This could lead to viruses or the collection of information for identity theft.

FYI: DNS stands for Domain Name Servers, and it’s basically the names of the websites you’ve visited, or the domain names which stand for IP addresses.

Blocking of IP Addresses
A common method of internet censorship is the blocking of IP addresses, the code of numbers which tell your computer where to actually go when you type in a domain name. Certain IP addresses can be blocked on an ad-hoc basis, or through region, typically referred to as geo-location or geo-blocking.

Filtering Keywords
Commonly used in parental controls, keyword filters block, you guessed it, certain keywords, either automatically or manually.2 Keyword filtering is also used in wide scale censorship, particularly in countries that want to suppress information.

Filtering Packets
Rather than filtering by domain names or keywords, some firewalls make their processing decisions based on:

Protocols
Ports
Network addresses
Source IP address
Destination IP address
Instead of the firewall filtering for malicious traffic, as it typically does with most antivirus software, these filters are solely based on the source and destination IP addresses. Access will be given to known IP addresses, and vice versa.

Traffic Shaping
Otherwise known as packet shaping, traffic shaping is a way of managing bandwidth that lets certain applications perform better than others. While prioritized apps will run with no problems, apps that aren’t prioritized will be throttled or slowed down.3

This is considered a type of censorship because it encourages internet users to use an app or service that performs better, while discouraging them to access an app that is not prioritized. For example, if an ISP has an affiliation with a streaming service, it could prioritize traffic from it while throttling traffic from its competitors.

Port Number Blacklisting
Last but not least, port number blacklisting is when an ISP blocks traffic based on its transport protocol and port number solely, ignoring IP addresses. This allows for the blocking of entire applications, not just certain websites.

Did You Know: We’ve tested all of the leading VPN services on the market? To see how each one of these companies performed when we put them to the test, read our review of NordVPN, review of ExpressVPN, as well as our review of IPVanish.

Internet Censorship Around The World
Not to go all Carmen Sandiego on you, but internet censorship looks very different in different countries. Freedom House, a nonprofit organization that advocates for media freedom and freedom of expression, compiles an annual list of all the world’s countries, ranked for their level of internet censorship. And so, we give you their best and worst countries for internet censorship.

Countries with Little to No Censorship
Canada: Our neighbor to the north, Canada has no controls on internet usage whatsoever, whether it’s religious, political, or social media content.
Iceland: Iceland boasts high internet access rates, few restrictions and even expanded laws protecting whistleblowers.
Countries with Strict Censorship
China: China doesn’t just have a Great Wall. They also have the Great Firewall, which controls the internet usage of anyone in their country. It filters out any popular foreign services along with all traffic that comes into the country, greatly limiting what people can see. It also filters traffic based on keywords, stopping its residents from searching, talking about, and accessing topics related to controversial events, such as the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests.

Pro Tip: Traveling in China? Connect to a VPN and you’ll be able to see all the content you want, even if it’s foreign. However, not all VPNs work in China. The Great Firewall is that good. See here the top three VPNs we tested in China on our recent trip.

Russia: The on-going Russia-Ukraine war has resulted in even more censorship. Even in normal circumstances, Russia blocks a ton of foreign websites, and Vladimir Putin’s proposed “Sovereign Internet” could make the internet in Russia even more disconnected. Russia is also one of the places where VPNs are illegal (because VPNs can be used to bypass censorship.)
How To Avoid Internet Censorship
If you are being censored at home, at work, by your ISP or by your country, there are a number of workarounds you can use to gain more freedom online. Some are free, some are paid, but all of them will only take a few minutes to set up and will greatly increase your protection from censorship.

VPNs
VPNs are Virtual Private Networks you can connect to that will encrypt your websites visited and device IP addresses. By hiding your web activity in a tunnel, you’ll be able to get around website restrictions.

Secure Browser
Secure browsers like Tor essentially do the same thing as VPNs, hide your IP address and clear your cookies just as soon as you close website tabs. All of your activity will be encrypted three times, ensuring that you’ll be safe even if you’ve visited restricted websites.

Don’t Use Incognito Mode
Many people think that Incognito Mode will automatically erase all of their web history, but that’s not the case. While the data will be deleted locally, your ISP will still be able to see your activities online, if there’s no other security measure in place like a VPN. So while Incognito Mode can be useful from hiding your web activity from the people you share devices with, it’s not a good choice for those that want privacy from their ISP.

Proxy
Proxy servers are similar to VPNs in that they hide IP addresses, allowing for more online freedom. To see how to change your settings to create a proxy server, read our article on how to change your IP address.

That said, proxies don’t offer as much protection as VPNs. In addition to hiding your IP address, VPNs also encrypt your data. Proxy servers don’t do that. They simply hide your IP address. Learn more about the differences of proxies and VPNs here.

Recap
You can use the internet for just about anything, whether it’s researching for a school project, playing a fun game or reading about the latest celebrity gossip. But it turns out that freedom isn’t free, especially if you’re in a country like China or Russia. However, with a few simple workarounds, you can ensure that your internet freedom stays just that.

Internet Censorship FAQs
Internet censorship differs greatly based on where you are, so naturally, people have a lot of questions about it.

Determining whether or not censorship is illegal in the U.S. depends on who is doing the censoring. Under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, Congress can’t restrict someone’s right to speak free. However, that means that private companies, schools, internet providers, and other entities outside of Congress can censor their students, customers, employees, and more. For example, if a private workplace censors its employees’ internet access, that is legal as the company is not Congress.

Whether or not the internet should be censored is a matter of individual opinion. We think in certain settings, like schools or workplaces, the internet should be censored to increase productivity and focus. However, outside of these areas, we don’t think the internet should be censored, especially by governments or internet service providers.

The United States, India and the European Union have lower levels of internet censorship than most countries, according to the human rights nonprofit organization Freedom House. However, even these countries ban certain apps, like how India has banned over 100 Chinese apps.

You can avoid internet censorship by using a VPN or proxy before surfing the web. You can also use Tor, an encrypted browser, to bypass firewalls.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/20/most-americans-favor-restrictions-on-false-information-violent-content-online/

Prior to the inauguration of President Donald Trump, Sunlight joined other transparency advocates in expressing concern about the future of open government data in the United States. We highlighted the ways an administration could alter government data that fell short of outright removal, from defunding collection to limiting access to altering data sets. Taking open government data offline entirely was the most extreme action we anticipated.

Thankfully, that did not come to pass in 2017: despite widespread concern, we do not have evidence that data has been removed from federal websites after a year into the Trump presidency.

The singular exception we know of was the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s animal welfare datasets, documented below, which were taken down and then partially returned following public outcry and several lawsuits.

In March 2018, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that included a report that specifically noted the removal, observing that the agency “is now posting heavily redacted inspection reports that make it difficult in certain cases for the public to understand the subject of the inspection, assess USDA’s subsequent actions, and to evaluate the effectiveness of its enforcement.”

The report noted that the takedown violated past congressional direction and directed restoration, stating “that the online searchable database should allow analysis and comparison of data and include all inspection reports, annual reports, and other documents related to enforcement of animal welfare laws. USDA is directed to comply with these requirements.”

“In reference to your inquiry, APHIS is reviewing the language and have no additional comments at this time,” said R. Andre Bell, an APHIS spokesman, in a prepared statement in answer to Sunlight’s questions.

We’ll update this tracker should the status of the data change.

HOW TO KEEP THE INTERNET OF THINGS FROM KILLING US ALL
Author warns about the coming hyper-networked world where all your devices are talking to each other. The world is wired. Thanks to the Internet of Things (IoT), pretty much every electronic device we own can now talk to each of our other devices. While it might seem fun to be able to adjust settings on your refrigerator from your cell phone or track brush strokes from your e-toothbrush app, the IoT comes with a brand new set of vulnerabilities as well. Last spring, a computer security company revealed that hackers had stolen a casino's entire database of high rollers by exploiting vulnerabilities in an Internet-connected aquarium. What happens when cheap IoT devices can drive your car off a cliff or give you poisons instead of medicine?

In Click Here to Kill Everybody: Security and Survival in a Hyper-Connected World, technologist and best-selling author Bruce Schneier argues that the emerging ability of connected devices to move and influence the physical world has created new threats for which we are woefully ill-prepared.

Schneier’s training is in cryptography, but his rarer skill lies in revealing hidden connections among the social, political, and technological choices that have shaped the Information Age. (He's also a family friend.) Schneier spoke to Pacific Standard about his new book and how we can prepare ourselves for the coming threats.

Your book has the scary title Click Here to Kill Everybody. Are we, in fact, all going to die because of these computers?

Probably not. The title is deliberately provocative.

So what is the worst-case scenario?

I actually hate doing worst-case scenarios. I call them movie-plot threats. [They] lead to worst-case thinking instead of figuring out what the proper trade-offs are. That sort of thinking leads to overreactions. So while I picked a provocative title, the book shies away from it almost from the beginning.

Still, the failures and risks we're used to in computers have become physical. We're used to computers not working, major sites on the Internet disappearing for a few hours, [and to] clicking and having pretty horrific things happen, but it's always been about data. What changed is it's become about people.

Are you referring to the so-called Internet of Things?

The Internet of Things is not about screens, not about computers and phones. It's about objects that have computing power. These objects do things. They have actuators. They are vacuum cleaners, cars, medical devices. They're supposed to do stuff in our world.

I have a thermostat. It's a computer I control from my phone. It turns my furnace on and off. And so, unlike a spreadsheet, where if it goes bad I lose some data, if my thermostat goes bad in Minneapolis in the winter, I lose my pipes. I think of these as the hands and feet of the Internet. The Internet is now doing stuff. It's affecting our world in a direct physical manner, and that just changes the way we have to think about computers and security.

Is there no rolling this back? Is the computerizing of everything here to stay?

Any solution that involved not doing the cool tech thing is not one that's gonna happen any time soon, [but] I actually think that we're going to reach a high-water mark of connectivity. I think about nuclear power. In the 1970s, nuclear power was the future. It was all gonna be nuclear, then we had accidents like Three Mile Island and others. Nuclear power didn't disappear, but became one of many aspects of an energy policy. My guess is that connectivity is gonna go that same way. We're still rushing into a big "connect-it-all" mentality, but at some point we're gonna start making more conscious decisions about what to connect.

For example, do you mean we'll all realize that we don't need our refrigerators online?

You might not need it.

Right now you have it 'cause it's cheaper. I think this is something people don't understand. Refrigerators have had computers for decades, but they were specialized: circuitry designed for the refrigerator, special hardware, special software that would run on their refrigerator in a dedicated embedded system. That's no longer cost-effective. Today, you pull a generic CPU of the shelf and you write generic software. That CPU comes with video software, an IP stack, processors for a microphone, with all of these things. The engineers build it, [so] they might as well hook it up. It's already there. The cost of Internet connectivity is so low, the marginal benefit of a control [of your fridge on your phone] seems worth it. Twenty years ago, there would have been a considerable effort to connect. Right now, it comes "free" with whatever computer they've thrown in.

That [low cost is] driving a lot of it. It's not that people want to computerize their electronic toothbrush; they can't help it.

Is the problem that corporations want to sell the data generated from devices like an e-toothbrush?

In computer security, we have something called the CIA triad: Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. Most of what we worry about with data is confidentiality. That's the Equifax hack, or the Office of Personnel Management hack, or Cambridge Analytica. Someone has my data and they're misusing it in some way.

[Click Here to Kill Everybody] is primarily about integrity and availability, which matter much more when you have physically capable computers. Yes, I'm worried that someone will hack the hospital and see my private medical records, but I'm much more concerned if they change my blood type. That's an integrity attack. I'm afraid that someone will hack my car and turn on the microphone, but I'm much more scared that they'll disable the brakes. That's an availability attack.

And in the hospital they'll eventually have, if they don't already, Internet-connected IVs where a hacker could turn up the morphine?

That's right. When computers can affect the world in a direct physical manner, the integrity and availability threats are much worse than the confidentiality threats because they affect life and property. The obvious examples are always cars and the power grid, but there are many others.

What are the solutions? Boycotts? Lawsuits? Regulations? New technical standards?

We're never gonna stop the influx of cheap insecure Internet of Things devices. We have to assume that they're there, and build security on top of that.

There's no single tech solution. All security is a patchwork of different things, but it's also designing systems with failure in mind. In 2004, there was a major blackout in the United States that covered the Northeast U.S. and the Southeast of Canada. After that, we redesigned the power grid to be more resilient, so little failures didn't cascade to big failures. It's that kind of thinking—we're not gonna make the system safe, but we can stem the catastrophes. We can make them fail securely.

So how do we get the tech industry to build such systems before the disasters?

In the book, I make a strong case for government involvement. There isn't an area of security or safety that has improved without strong government involvement: cars, airplanes, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, workplace safety, food safety, restaurant hygiene. There isn't one [where] on its own, the market improved the safety or security of the products and services. It always takes government stepping in to say, "You must do this; you can't do that; if you do these things, we're allowed to sue."

Will the tech world accept government intervention?

I think it's inevitable. Governments regulate dangerous things. They always do. And once you realize that it will happen, the conversation shifts from "yes" or "no" to "how." I'd rather we have these discussions about what makes sense to do before there is a disaster and a crisis. If we in the tech space can try to figure out what a sensible policy is, we'll have something to propose when policymakers say, "something must be done!"

So you're hoping that the leaders of the tech world take charge here? What would you like to happen next? What's the first step?

We need two things: for policymakers to start understanding tech, and technologies to understand policy. It's the separation of the the two worlds that's causing this disconnect. Understanding both is essential to understanding either. My goal is to bridge these worlds.

Technologists can't ignore policy. But also the policymakers need to really understand tech. It's no longer fashionable to be a Luddite. A few years ago, you say "I don't use email," everyone would laugh. Now, if you don't understand the tech, you're dangerous.

You know the President is able to shut down all US comms, yeah? An FCC commish wants to stop him from doing that 79 comment bubble on white
Too bad the Republicans aren't going to agree with her It's troubling how in the past few years some countries have, with increasing zeal, blocked off their own citizens from the internet for gross authoritarian reasons.

Ever since the Egyptian government demonstrated it was possible to take a nation offline – something that most countries had assumed for more or less impossible – the practice has taken off.

Iraq persistently cuts off internet access during school exams; Iran recently cut internet access while it brutally stamped out an uprising; Cameroon cut off his tech hub over government protests; and perhaps more egregiously and recently, India has killed internet access to the disputed territory of Kashmir for six months, only recently lifting the blockade.

This increasingly common tactic was the subject of a keynote on Tuesday morning in Washington DC by FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel at the State of the Net conference. Naturally enough, she condemned countries closing down the internet, and argued that it was time for the United States to speak up.

And then she took a dark turn. “While we’re at it, we need to update our laws too,” she told the assembled policy wonks, politicians, and lobbyists, “because 47 USC Section 606 gives the president power to shut down communications without clear judicial or legislative review.”

And she is, of course, right. The President of the United States does have extraordinary powers in the event of war, and one of them is the ability to “suspend or amend, for such time as he may see fit, the rules and regulations applicable to any or all stations or devices capable of emitting electromagnetic radiations.”

It goes further than that: the President can “direct that such communications as in his judgment may be essential to the national defense and security shall have preference or priority with any carrier.” And he may “give these directions at and for such times as he may determine, and may modify, change, suspend, or annul them and for any such purpose.”

National security
There are more clauses and that all amount to pretty much the same thing: the President can decide to do pretty much what he wants with communications if he decides it is “essential to the national defense and security.”

In the context of an increasingly partisan and ridiculous Washington, this could be seen as yet another example of over-the-top bluster that no one, not even the speaker, believes to be true but as one tech wonk, Harold Feld of Public Knowledge noted immediately on Twitter:

“I normally think this sort of talk is alarmist, but Rosenworcel is one of the most rational policy wonks I know. If she is worried, I pay attention.”

This is, after all, the same week in which a top lawyer argued in the Senate that the President cannot be removed from power, not even impeached, for an abuse of power – and members of his party lined up behind that argument.

As been made abundantly clear, the President is not only willing to do things that previous presidents would never have considered, he appears to actively seek out opportunities to use the power of his office to strengthen his own power and chances of re-election.

Does Donald Trump have the legal authority to demand that mobile phone networks be shut down? Yes. That Twitter and Facebook stopped sending updates? Yes. That the internet itself be suspended? Yes. Does he has the same authority to push his own messages? Yes, it is literally written into US law.

Is it possible to do so? Yes, it is. No matter how much we wish it weren’t true. No matter how much internet engineers will argue that they can route around such efforts, the truth is that the US government has the ability to bring everything to a grinding halt for 99 per cent of the country. And those companies will obey such an order, especially if granted on a temporary basis using presidential authority.

Stable genius
Which leads to the question: would Trump do it? And the answer: yes, of course, he would at least try to float the idea if he thought it would benefit him. The President has yet to accept a single instance, theoretical or otherwise, of where his authority is limited. He has literally argued that he is not capable of committing a crime while President.

If the polls swing against Donald Trump, if he feels his presidency is under threat, does anyone seriously imagine that he wouldn’t do anything and everything within his power to retain his position?

Rosenworcel’s warning is far from the first time that this theoretical threat has been posed. In March 2018, another policy wonk, Berin Szoka, gave the exact same warning during a speech. A year before that another lobbyist warning on Twitter that the same powers “grant POTUS vast powers to shut down communications networks.”

This time last year, the same Harold Feld as earlier noted on Twitter that “it is a sign of the time that I have been asked about 47 USC 606 more in the last two years than in the entire rest of my 20-year career.”

And that’s not forgetting the serious push back in 2011 – shortly after the Egyptian shutdown – by some in Congress to pass legislation that would specifically lead to the development of an “internet kill switch.”

It was laughed at at the time but the sad truth is that didn’t progress in some part because experts argued that it wasn’t really necessary to have a switch: a presidential order to communications companies would result in the same thing without the need for a new law. Bill Gates concurred.

In his own words
And let’s not forget Donald Trump himself, during the presidential primaries, back in December 2015, long before he entered the White House. “I would certainly be open to closing areas where we are at war with somebody,” he said on stage. “I sure as hell don't want to let people that want to kill us and kill our nation use our Internet.”

So, yes, it’s a real possibility. And now we have an FCC Commissioner – not a lobbyist or a policy wonk talking during a panel session or in theoretical tones – an actual commissioner who would be among the first to see such a presidential order on stage during one of the most significant internet policy conferences that takes place each year, on stage, as part of a keynote speech saying “we need to change this law.”

“Even temporary disruption could create havoc with elections or people’s lives. We need a re-examination of the broad language of 47 USC 606 and we need to create legal guardrails,” she warned.

If you can’t imagine waking up one morning in October or November this year to find Twitter comprises solely of a series of messages from complete with retweets, and switch on the news to find that the President addressing the nation from the Oval Office on every channel, well then you haven’t been paying attention. And it would all be legally just fine.

Show less