Internet Freedom Advocacy

Spectrum does not belong to Airtel or Jio. It is a national resource owned by the people of India 🇮🇳 Telecom companies are custodians with a license to operate — not owners with the right to decide which citizens deserve faster access to public infrastructure. If premium-speed internet starts depending only on who can pay more, then digital equality slowly turns into digital discrimination. ⚠️ A student attending online classes, a farmer checking mandi prices, a small shopkeeper accepting UPI payments, or a common citizen booking railway tickets — should not be placed at a disadvantage because telecom companies decide to create “VIP internet lanes.” Public infrastructure cannot become a private fast-track system for a few privileged users. Higher-quality technology is welcome. Faster innovation is welcome. Better networks are welcome. 🚀 But the solution should be: ➡️ Invest more in infrastructure ➡️ Expand fiber networks ➡️ Accelerate 6G research ➡️ Improve satellite & space-based connectivity ➡️ Increase overall network capacity for everyone Not partial access to a public resource. Because once companies start deciding who gets faster digital access, the consequences go beyond entertainment. It affects: ⚠️ Railway ticket bookings ⚠️ Online services ⚠️ Digital businesses ⚠️ Education access ⚠️ Financial transactions ⚠️ Equal digital opportunity Today it may look like a premium feature. Tomorrow it can quietly reshape fairness in the digital economy. Public resource. Equal access. Equal opportunity. 🇮🇳 @airtelindia @Dot_India @JM_Scindia @jagograhakjago #NetNeutrality #DigitalIndia #InternetFreedom #Telecom #Airtel #Jio #5G #6G #Technology #India #EqualAccess #DigitalRights #Internet #ConsumerRights #UPI #TelecomPolicy #Broadband #Innovation

The Islamic Republic has shut down the Internet. Fewer than one percent of people still have access to this essential infrastructure and essential online services. And it did not happen through subtle regulation or content moderation, it happened by attacking the core of the network: blocking essential protocols and severing connectivity at the infrastructure level. So is fighting for Internet freedom a losing game? It becomes a losing game if we continue to advocate for data localization in the name of “digital sovereignty.” When governments control where data must live, they also gain the power to control whether access exists at all. Instead of investing in distributed networks, resilient protocols, and genuinely decentralized infrastructure, we keep demanding a stronger governmental grip over the Internet and then act surprised when those levers are abused. We saw this in Bangladesh during the shutdown. We see it now in Iran. When access is cut at the core, there is nothing to fall back on. We cannot help people reconnect because we did not prioritize people over control. We resist satellite Internet and freeing satellite Internet from governments grip and we resist alternative connectivity models because they are politically inconvenient even though they are often the only lifeline when states decide to pull the plug. Internet freedom is not failing because the idea is naive. It is failing because we keep building an Internet optimized for control. And every shutdown makes clear who pays the price.

A report that was more than a year of work is out: "Resilience runs through people," from Gazzetta and ASL19, with publishing support from the Open Technology Fund. After Iran's June 2025 shutdown, we surveyed nearly 900 people inside the country. We found that 76% of those who knew about VPNs had already helped someone else use one. That number points to a whole layer of work that's exciting to explore further. Keeping others online during the shutdown was not just the work of a small technical elite. They were part of it, but so was a much wider layer in between: neighbors, relatives, and shopkeepers, not all doing the same thing. Some just mentioned a tool that worked. Some forwarded a config. Some ran a group or a channel. Some sat down and walked a relative through the setup screens. Some ran Delta Chat servers. Those are different roles, different skills, different constraints, and each one a different opening for anyone who wants to help the network hold. Once you see helpers and not just users, and then start seeing distinct segments among them, you can ask more useful and actionable questions: what does each one need to make passing it on worth their while? The person who recommends tools needs something good enough to stake a little trust on. The person who sets up other people's phones needs a guide short enough to forward, not a manual. The person running a channel needs a way to share at scale without exposing themselves. Different exchanges, different value on offer. A single tool aimed at "the user" is a lucky shot at best. Most internet freedom work, and a lot of journalism work, is still built like a mass market consumer product: ship a tool to "the public," rely on the algos and count the installs. The richer opportunity sits one layer over, in the people who carry the tool to the next person, and in how differently you can design and fund once you take their roles seriously. This is not history. Iran cut access again in January 2026, and the same pattern held. Shutdowns and targeted access disruptions like this are becoming much more frequent globally, and the case for resourcing the people who keep each other online only gets stronger. The lesson also reaches past shutdowns. Wherever people get their information, it so often travels at some point through someone they trust; a shutdown just strips away the platforms that distort this picture. Who are the helpers in your networks, and what makes it worth their while to pass your work on? Links to reads in comment.

Protecting children should never become an excuse for expanding state control. For years, I have worked in child protection, behavioral analysis, online exploitation investigations, and safeguarding. I have seen the dangers that exist online. I have seen grooming, manipulation, and the devastating consequences of digital harm. That is precisely why I refuse to accept the false choice being presented to the public: either support more government control or admit you do not care about children. We can protect children without sacrificing privacy. We can hold platforms accountable without normalizing mass identity verification. We can educate young people without transferring parental responsibility to the state. The most effective protection has never been censorship. It has never been surveillance. It has never been bureaucratic control. It has always been informed parents, digital literacy, critical thinking, and accountability. A society that teaches children how to navigate risk will always be stronger than one that simply tries to hide risk from them. My latest article examines the growing push for social media restrictions, digital identity systems, parental rights, and the long-term consequences of expanding government authority in the name of child safety. Read it. Challenge it. Debate it. But never stop asking questions. Freedom and child protection should never be treated as opposing values. #ChildProtection #DigitalFreedom #OnlineSafety #ParentalResponsibility #DigitalLiteracy #PrivacyMatters #FreedomOfSpeech #CivilLiberties #Safeguarding #InternetFreedom #CriticalThinking #Parenting #DigitalRights #SocialMedia #PublicPolicy

In Pakistan, the need for opinionated technologists is more urgent than ever, particularly in the realm of Internet and ICT. Recent instances of deliberate tinkering with the Internet by regulators have exposed a critical gap in our technological landscape—a shortage of technologists who are not only skilled but also willing to speak out against counterproductive policies. The disruption of online services and restricted access to information are not just technical issues but reflections of a broader problem: the lack of strong, informed voices challenging these decisions. Without technologists who can critically engage with and oppose such measures, the country risks further setbacks in its digital evolution, undermining the potential for growth in the ICT sector. The consequences of this absence are clear in the recurring disruptions that have plagued Pakistan's Internet infrastructure. These are not just random technical glitches but the result of deliberate actions taken without adequate consultation or foresight. Opinionated technologists, who understand both the technical and societal implications of such decisions, are crucial for preventing these issues from escalating. They have the knowledge and the responsibility to advocate for policies that support a free and open Internet, ensuring that ICT development is aligned with the best interests of the public. To safeguard the future of Pakistan's digital landscape, it is essential to cultivate a new generation of technologists who are not only proficient but also vocal and principled in their stance on critical issues.

This week for the Digispace Africa Research Fellowship, we covered internet shutdowns in Africa. Internet and social media shutdowns in Africa involve governments intentionally restricting or blocking access to the internet or specific online platforms like social media applications. Governments are increasingly using this trend to control information, suppress free expression, hinder online mobilisation, restrict online freedom of assembly and association, and limit access to vital information, particularly during crucial events like protests or elections. Governments often justify internet shutdowns by claiming they are necessary to maintain public order and safety, prevent the spread of illegal publications, or prevent cheating during examinations. However, analysts and digital rights groups view these justifications with scepticism, often seeing them as "jargon" or pretexts for exerting control, suppressing dissent, and preventing the spread of information that could challenge government authority. While some internet outages may be attributed to technical problems like issues with undersea cables, the timing of these disruptions often strongly suggests intentional government action. Shutdowns frequently coincide with significant events like protests or elections, where limiting communication and information flow would benefit the government. Internet shutdowns have severe negative impacts. They disrupt the flow of information, making it impossible for people to access critical information in a timely manner, which can be a matter of life and death in crises. They also hinder digital activism and the ability of citizens to organize, coordinate protests, and hold governments accountable. Shutdowns limit access to information guaranteed by national constitutions and international frameworks, contribute to the spread of disinformation and misinformation, threaten media freedom, and damage a country's international reputation regarding digital rights and democratic principles. #digitalrights #internetfreedom

What if we recognised digital access as a human right? During Human Rights Month, I’ve reflected on what true access and equality mean in South Africa today. In 2025, everything from learning to earning depends on being online. But, over 13 million South Africans still lack meaningful access to the internet, many of them in rural and underserved communities (ICASA, 2024). This gap slows progress and deepens inequality. According to the World Bank, a 10% increase in broadband penetration can result in a 1.35% increase in GDP growth in developing countries. But without that access, learners miss out on education, entrepreneurs lose business opportunities, and families can’t access critical health or government services. As The International Telecommunications Union puts it: “Digital inclusion is no longer a luxury. It is a foundational element of equitable development.” At tipped, we design technology that puts people first. We believe everyone deserves the dignity of participation in the digital economy. But dignity requires access – and right now, that access remains out of reach for too many. In a recent UN Human Rights Council report, the right to digital connectivity was recognised as “a key enabler of other rights – from education and healthcare to freedom of expression and economic participation.” We urge government, business, and civil society leaders to close the divide. Let’s build infrastructure, promote digital literacy, and make devices and data affordable. Let’s prioritise rural communities in our digital strategies, not treat them as an afterthought. When we expand digital access, we expand opportunity. We give people the tools to learn, grow, work, and speak up. That’s why we consider digital access a right. This Human Rights Month, I call on everyone to see connectivity as a cornerstone of freedom and inclusion.

How Free Are We on the Internet? Colleagues, I recently came across reports from Statista and Freedom House on internet freedom and the numbers are, to put it mildly, alarming. How many people on this planet do you think have access to a truly free internet? How many can confidently say they won’t be imprisoned or persecuted for expressing their thoughts and feelings online? Half? A third? No. Just 17%. Another 35% live under partial censorship. And 35% have no online freedom at all. The Details: The internet reaches over 5 billion people worldwide. But… 👇🏼 - In three-quarters of all countries, internet users have been arrested for nonviolent expression, sometimes facing prison sentences of over 10 years. - People have been physically attacked or even killed for their online activities in at least 43 countries, a record-high number in 2024. - As of May 2024, 79% of the world’s internet population lives in countries where people have been jailed for posting political, social, or religious content. - 66% of internet users are in countries where governments employ pro-regime commentators (bots) to manipulate online discussions. - 67% live in places where people have been assaulted or killed for their online activities. - 65% live under government-imposed blocks on political, social, or religious websites. - 48% live in countries where authorities shut down the internet or mobile networks for political reasons. - Internet restrictions are increasing in crisis situations: In 2020, there were 100 internet shutdowns worldwide. By 2023, that number jumped to 173. Where Is the Internet Most and Least Free? - The most free country: Iceland, followed by Estonia, Canada, and Chile. (I’ll attach a screenshot if you want to see who follows next.) - The least free country: China, which now shares this title with Myanmar. Myanmar’s military regime has tightened censorship by cracking down on VPNs. - Following China and Myanmar, the harshest internet restrictions are in Iran and Russia. - Russia leads the world in long-term social media shutdowns - In Africa, the most heavily controlled internet environments are in Egypt and Ethiopia. - In the Western Hemisphere, Cuba has the most restricted online space. Governments Frequently Shut Down the Internet to Suppress Dissent: - In 2023, authorities cut internet access 21 times due to protests. - Three more shutdowns occurred due to political instability. And here’s another troubling pattern: According to the Gender Inequality Index, in countries with the lowest levels of internet freedom, women’s rights are the most severely restricted. What are your thoughts on this?

The indispensable Freedom House Freedom on the Net 2025 report is out today and, no surprise, finds that internet freedom globally has declined for the 15th consecutive year. States are increasingly acting to repress freedom of expression online and to control information flows and narratives, while human rights organizations around the world struggle with cuts to their funding. And the withdrawal of the US government from its leadership role in the struggle for internet freedom has set back important work. With respect to AI development, the report finds that "as AI companies establish partnerships with governments ranging from democracies to autocracies, they will inevitably face pressure to infringe on human rights, just as telecommunications companies and social media platforms have over the past 15 years." It's vital that those companies developing AI technologies, develop - if they don't already have them - clear human rights policies, carry out human rights due diligence and disclosure and engage with human rights actors to ensure that they are doing all that they can to respect rights. https://lnkd.in/gW-Kh2fK