Overview about the Asian online content rule

• No uniform approach to online content regulation

• Wide variations in in political, economic, (and regulatory) regimes as well as online access and cultural orientations

• Home to several home-grown models of Internet filtering as well as online activism and online vigilantism

Asian variations of democracy

Full-fledged democracies

Struggling democracies

Authoritarian democracies

No democratic mechanisms

Japan, South Korea India, Philippines,Taiwan,

Indonesia, Thailand, Pakistan, Laos, Timor-Leste

Singapore, Vietnam, Cambodia,

Burma, China, North Korea, Brunei

Internet users in Asia Pacific (1)

http://www.emarketer.com/blog/index.php/tag/asian-advertising-market/

Source: McKinsey

Internet users in

Asia

Online Ad Revenue in Asia/Pacific

(Excluding Japan) (US$)Source: International Data Corporation (IDC). Oct 2010

• For 2011, growth of more than 50% (yellow + red area) compared to 2009 and estimated to be more than 100% for 2014

• http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=IDC_P21090

*

Online Ad Spending in Asia

* Total ad spending

*

Web advertising in Asia

• Web advertisement spending leading the way for Asia

• Propelled by a surge in search and directory spending

• Source: http://www.iab.vn/2010/06/21/news/online-ad-spending-in-asia-pacific-is-heating-up-fast/

Internet business in Asia

Source: McKinsey

Variations in political culture in Asia

• Political culture– From bureaucratic officialdom to charismatic leadership

• Religion– Different religious traditions from Buddhism, Hinduism,

Christianity and, to a certain extent, Marxism, have influenced different Asian nations in very different ways, leading to very different understandings of the nature of governance, the role of the government, and the rights and duties of citizens

Online content regulation trends in Asia • Technical regulation

– Mandatory filtering at different network levels• Automated and ordered blocklists targeting content-specific to politically

sensitive topics in each respective country– Indirect regulation via content intermediaries esp. online service

providers (OSPs)– Evolution from 1st generation to 3rd generation filtering scheme

• Legal regulation– Cybercrime law– Other content-specific laws e.g. defamation, blasphemy, sedition, lèse

majesté, pornography• Self-regulation

– Code of ethics– Online vigilantism and self-censorship

• No viable regulation

Universally recognized regulatory mechanisms for online content

• legal sanction

• blocking and filtering system• codes of conduct • hotlines • media literacy

• National examples of online regulatory approach in Asia

China • “Guarded Openness” pragmatic regulatory approach

• “Great Firewall of China”– Automated filtering at

IIGs, NIX and ISPs levels based on topics, keywords, URLs

– Strict guidelines and surveillance by “big mamas” in onlineforums

• Blogosphere

– More than 167 million bloggers (10% as “active authors)

– Promotion of self-and intermediary censorship by blog service providers (BSPs)

China

South Korea • Heavily regulated through Internet Content Filtering Ordinance passed since 2001

• Prime content filtering target– Homosexuality– North Korea/unification

• Online vigilantism led to real-name registration requirements in forums andchatrooms

India • Censoring pornography but not political speech

• The case of Savita BhabhiIndia's first online comic porn star was banned by the Department of Telecommunication, Ministry of IT and Telecom, for promoting obscenity in September 2009.

• Before being banned, Savita Bhabhi drew over 60 million users to her online abode every month.

• She was later resurrected by thousands of online pleas on twitter and mainstream media with hashtags and headlines “Save savita,”“Don’t let Savita die”

Pakistan • Blasphemy, security and political conflict as major categories of offensive content online and off-line

• In 2009-2010, the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) banned several websites and blogs including “Facebook,” “Blogspot”, “Wikipedia” and “YouTube” that had published the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad.

• 7 major websites including Google, Yahoo and Amazon were also monitored for sacrilegiouscontent

Singapore • Dual regulation approach to content regulation– Mainstream media heavily

regulated and state-controlled– ‘light touch’ regulatory

framework for online content– Class license

scheme for providers of online political and religious speech

– Breeding a “Culture of silence” through self-censorship

Malaysia • No pervasive filtering practices

(illegal according to Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission Act), hence allowing alternative voice to prosper online

• Curbing of online dissent through existing laws –sedition, defamation, and national security

Burma • Iron grip on online content with widespread censorship

• National firewall restricts users to an intranet purged of any anti-government content.

• Blocked websites include exiled Burmese media, proxies and other censorship circumvention tools, certain international media, and blogs and sites offering scholarships abroad.

• Despite stringent control, the number of domestic bloggers keeps rising:

current number is around, 500 ofwhom blog regularly on politics and current affairs.

Thailand • Volatile political condition and emergency decree led to broad-based surveillance and censorship of online content, targeting political speech esp. lèse majesté content

• 2007 cybercrime law which imposes severe intermediary liability led to indirect regulation by OSPs which host the much-needed public sphere in the climate of suppressed speech

• Rising online witch-hunting stifles civilian dissent

“we are confident that more than 1 million of Thais hate Mark V11”

Mobile number

No viable regulation • No national filtering in Indonesia, Laos, Nepal and Philippines

• Filtering at end-user and institutional servers do exist.

Conclusion• Content regulatory mechanisms has undermined the

democratic potential of online content in Asia– Filtering, blocking and legal control have been primary regulatory

means, with little emphasis given to hotlines, media literacy, code of ethics and other mechanisms that would empower users or raise awareness about illegal or harmful content

– Self-censorship has become an underlying norm

• No straightforward relationship between level of online access, democratic deployment of Internet, and choice of regulatory regime

• Country specific issues and existing social processes shape the nature of content regulation regimes.

Policy Issues • Transparency and accountability of filtering regimes• Cybercrime law to curb effects of social media by

positing online intermediaries as chokers• Censoring “the fifth estate” – from CJs and VJs to

Wikileaks • Web2.0 and traceability regulation• Beyond chilling effect -- online vigilantism and witch-

hunting