The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Access Denied The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering
Open accessAbstract
Internet filtering seems like an infringement of the civil liberties of all of us who use this free, public, unitary, global network of networks. But states have a strong argument that they have the right to control domestic matters, whether or not they occur in cyberspace, and there is often little that other states can do to influence them. The future of the Internet, if not all geopolitics, hangs in the balance.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“First, in financial terms, they are costly to develop and maintain,14 and even if offered free at the point of use, their costs are ultimate borne by the consumer or taxpayer.15”
From Internet Filtering and Adolescent Exposure to Online Sexual Material (2018) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“Digital and social media offer important new tools for social movements, activists, and state critics (1) as well as substantial avenues for expanding state surveillance and suppression of those same actors (2, 3).”
From Physical and virtual repertoires of contention (2022) · cites this paper as [3]
In the citing paper
“Nation states’ use of digital surveillance (Table 1, cell 2) is long-standing and well-documented (2, 3, 52).”
From Physical and virtual repertoires of contention (2022) · cites this paper as [3]
In the citing paper
“Corporate actions may also be compelled, whether through state ownership structures, domestic laws, or orders to private telecom companies, to restrict specific topics or cut access to citizens (2, 3, 130, 131).”
From Physical and virtual repertoires of contention (2022) · cites this paper as [3]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001 · Cited by 2,451
Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion
Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019) · International Security · doi:10.1162/isec_a_00351 · Cited by 1,879
How Social Media Facilitates Political Protest: Information, Motivation, and Social Networks
Jost, J. T., Barberá, P., Bonneau, R., Langer, M., Metzger, M., Nagler, J., Sterling, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2018) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12478 · Cited by 492
Theorizing the image for Security Studies
Hansen, L. (2011) · European Journal of International Relations · doi:10.1177/1354066110388593 · Cited by 468
Political Repression: Iron Fists, Velvet Gloves, and Diffuse Control
Earl, J. (2011) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102609 · Cited by 445
Metadata
- Authors
- Deibert, R., Palfrey, J., Rohozinski, R., & Zittrain, J. L.
- Venue
- CrimRxiv
- Publisher
- Knowledge Futures
- Published
- 2008-02-01
- OpenAlex
- W2138011829
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 30
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- CrimRxiv (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
- Social Sciences › Law › Freedom of Expression and Defamation
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Keywords
- internet filtering, civil liberties, internet governance, geopolitics, censorship, freedom of expression
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
