online content and argue that protection of online speech rights by these intermediaries will require an affirmation of their role as free speech providers and clarification of
applicable laws and regulations.
Points of Control
While filtering by ISPs was well documented as early as 2002, and commercial tools to
filter Internet access in schools, libraries, and businesses have been available since the
late 1990s, filtering at other points in the network is a more recent phenomenon.
Skype’s Chinese-language client, built in cooperation with TOM Online, demonstrated
that Internet filtering could be implemented at the client software level. In April 2006,
Skype admitted that the co-branded Chinese version of the Skype text chat product filtered users’ messages based on a list of banned keywords. 2 In 2008, Internet researcher
Nart Villeneuve discovered that the TOM Skype software was not merely blocking keywords, but surveilling users, storing conversations where specific keywords had been
mentioned. 3
Examples like this indicate that scholars of Internet filtering and censorship need to
develop methods to monitor and study filtering at other points in the network: an end
user’s operating system, application software and hardware; intermediate nodes in networks, beyond ISPs and boundary routers; Web hosting providers; and providers of
social media services.
Companies that provide Web hosting services or social media platforms are becoming increasingly important as possible choke points as Web users publish content on
Web servers they do not control. In the early days of the World Wide Web, most Web
sites were managed by organizations that controlled the content posted on the sites,
the server software that delivered Web pages, and the server hardware that ran the
code. While some Web sites are still vertically integrated and managed, the vast majority of Web site developers rent server space from Web hosting companies or use free
Web hosting services like Tripod.com or Wordpress.com.
These OSPs provide services to millions of users, most of whom would lack the
means and technical skill to maintain their own Web servers. Sites that allow publishing in the context of more complex community interactions, like Facebook or LiveJournal, would be extremely difficult for even a sophisticated user to reproduce. The
unique dynamics of those communities require thousands or millions of users to share
a single platform managed by a community host. While the ease of use of these platforms has been a great boon for online free speech, it has put a great deal of power in
the hands of companies that provide Web site or community hosting services.
Under pressure from local legal authorities, these companies can reveal sensitive information about users. Yahoo!’s Hong Kong office complied with Chinese government
requests for the identity of a user who forwarded a memo documenting government
72
Ethan Zuckerman
applicable laws and regulations.
Points of Control
While filtering by ISPs was well documented as early as 2002, and commercial tools to
filter Internet access in schools, libraries, and businesses have been available since the
late 1990s, filtering at other points in the network is a more recent phenomenon.
Skype’s Chinese-language client, built in cooperation with TOM Online, demonstrated
that Internet filtering could be implemented at the client software level. In April 2006,
Skype admitted that the co-branded Chinese version of the Skype text chat product filtered users’ messages based on a list of banned keywords. 2 In 2008, Internet researcher
Nart Villeneuve discovered that the TOM Skype software was not merely blocking keywords, but surveilling users, storing conversations where specific keywords had been
mentioned. 3
Examples like this indicate that scholars of Internet filtering and censorship need to
develop methods to monitor and study filtering at other points in the network: an end
user’s operating system, application software and hardware; intermediate nodes in networks, beyond ISPs and boundary routers; Web hosting providers; and providers of
social media services.
Companies that provide Web hosting services or social media platforms are becoming increasingly important as possible choke points as Web users publish content on
Web servers they do not control. In the early days of the World Wide Web, most Web
sites were managed by organizations that controlled the content posted on the sites,
the server software that delivered Web pages, and the server hardware that ran the
code. While some Web sites are still vertically integrated and managed, the vast majority of Web site developers rent server space from Web hosting companies or use free
Web hosting services like Tripod.com or Wordpress.com.
These OSPs provide services to millions of users, most of whom would lack the
means and technical skill to maintain their own Web servers. Sites that allow publishing in the context of more complex community interactions, like Facebook or LiveJournal, would be extremely difficult for even a sophisticated user to reproduce. The
unique dynamics of those communities require thousands or millions of users to share
a single platform managed by a community host. While the ease of use of these platforms has been a great boon for online free speech, it has put a great deal of power in
the hands of companies that provide Web site or community hosting services.
Under pressure from local legal authorities, these companies can reveal sensitive information about users. Yahoo!’s Hong Kong office complied with Chinese government
requests for the identity of a user who forwarded a memo documenting government
72
Ethan Zuckerman