Coping with Communications Spillover: Canadian Broadcasting Policy in the 1990s

Fletcher, Frederick J.; Fletcher, M.

doi:10.4324/9780429270055-14

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The datasets we use from ONI and Access Now are remotely measured (Faris and Villeneuve, 2008; Access Now, 2017). While some work has been done to compare individual datasets or new tools with existing tools for validity (Frantz et al, 2020; Raman et al, 2020; Feldstein, 2021), we find no work comparing methodologies as we do here and in Fletcher and Hayes-Birchler (2020).…”

Section: Measuring Internet Censorshipcontrasting

confidence: 51%

“…Therefore V-Dem and ONI are compared on the two internet filtering questions (political content and social media) from 2007–2012. Freedom House, V-Dem, and Access Now overlap temporally from 2016–2020, but Access Now does not contain information on the filtering of political content (note that this is an update to the data published in Fletcher and Hayes-Birchler, 2020). Therefore, Freedom House, V-Dem, and Access Now are compared on the concepts of social media blockages and internet shutdowns from 2016–2020.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We review all articles that include more than one dataset and one of the initial search terms somewhere in the full text to determine whether these works are comparing measurement methods between these datasets. Table 1 depicts the findings of each of these searches, as well as the results of searches from an earlier iteration of this analysis conducted in July 2020 (Fletcher and Hayes-Birchler, 2020).…”

Section: Measuring Internet Censorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is remote measurement a better assessment of internet censorship than expert analysis? Analyzing tradeoffs for international donors and advocacy organizations of current data and methodologies

Fletcher

Hayes-Birchler²

2023

Data & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Donor organizations and multilaterals require ways to measure progress toward the goals of creating an open internet, and condition assistance on recipient governments maintaining access to information online. Because the internet is increasingly becoming a leading tool for exchanging information, authoritarian governments around the world often seek methods to restrict citizens’ access. Two of the most common methods for restricting the internet are shutting down internet access entirely and filtering specific content. We conduct a systematic literature review of articles on the measurement of internet censorship and find that little work has been done comparing the tradeoffs of using different methods to measure censorship on a global scale. We compare the tradeoffs between measuring these phenomena using expert analysis (as measured by Freedom House and V-Dem) and remote measurement with manual oversight (as measured by Access Now and the OpenNet Initiative [ONI]) for donor organizations that want to incentivize and measure good internet governance. We find that remote measurement with manual oversight is less likely to include false positives, and therefore may be more preferable for donor organizations that value verifiability. We also find that expert analysis is less likely to include false negatives, particularly for very repressive regimes in the Middle East and Central Asia and therefore these data may be preferable for advocacy organizations that want to ensure very repressive regimes are not able to avoid accountability, or organizations working primarily in these areas.

show abstract

Section: Measuring Internet Censorshipcontrasting

confidence: 51%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Measuring Internet Censorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation