internet speech

• Speech on Internet for Students and Children

Speech on Internet

Very good morning to all. Today, I am here to present a speech on internet. Someone has rightly said that the world is a small place. With the advent of the internet, this saying seems realistic. The internet has really bought the world together and the distance between two persons is really not a distance today. We all know about the technological advancements happening in the world. One of the major attributes of technological advancement is the internet. Today the internet is available easily to many individuals. Also, it is rapidly changing the way we work, travel, educate and entertain.

Source: pixabay.com

Evolution of Internet

Many of you are aware of what the internet facility is. Still, I would like to highlight the aspects of the internet. The internet is a facility wherein two gadget screens are connected through signals. Thus, through this medium, the information can be exchanged between two gadgets.

The history of the internet dates back to 40 years ago with its first use in the United States of America and the inventor of the internet was Robert E.Kahn and Vint Cerf. Earlier the internet was only used to send emails between two computers. Today it has reached all distant parts of the globe with more than 1.5 million users. They use the internet for exchange of information, entertainment, money exchanges, etc.

Get the Huge list of 100+ Speech Topics here

Pros of the Internet

The internet facility has many advantages and it has proved to be a milestone in the technical advancement of humankind. It allows users to exchange and communicate information. Two users who are sitting in distant corners of the world can easily communicate through mails, chats, and video conferencing by using the internet.

It provides information of all kinds to its users. Also, it provides entertainment by offering services of watching movies, listening to music, playing a game. Various day to day activities such as travel ticket bookings, banking facilities, shopping, etc. can be easily done through the internet.

Nowadays the internet also offers various dating websites and matrimonial websites by which one can find their prospective soul mate.

The Internet also offers a facility to its users where they can earn online by means of blogs and video blogs. These are some of the major benefits of the internet has a dark side also.

Cons of the Internet

Many a number of people misuse information for fraud and illegal works. Due to excessive use of the internet in the wrong hands, a number of cybercrimes are happening which is affecting the trust of the people on the internet.

Abuse over social media is also prevailing through the internet wherein people of negative mentality abuse other people on the basis of caste, race, color, appearance, etc. Addiction to online games is one of the major problems of parents today as children get addicted to online games and avoid their studies and outdoor activities.

The internet has nowadays become such an important part of the life of the people that it is hardly possible to spend even a day without using the internet. Thus after seeing the negatives of the internet, it is not practically possible to completely avoid the internet. However, we can put a timeline or restriction on its usage especially to children.

The parents and teachers can monitor the online activities of their children and guide them on the proper use of the internet. We should also educate and aware people of online cybercrime and fraud. Thus through proper precautions and adopting safety measures the internet can prove to be a boon for the development of human society.

Read Essays for Students and Children here !

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Speech for Students

• Speech on India for Students and Children
• Speech on Mother for Students and Children
• Speech on Air Pollution for Students and Children
• Speech about Life for Students and Children
• Speech on Disaster Management for Students and Children
• Speech on Generation Gap for Students and Children
• Speech on Indian Culture for Students and Children
• Speech on Sports for Students and Children
• Speech on Water for Students and Children

16 responses to “Speech on Water for Students and Children”

this was very helpful it saved my life i got this at the correct time very nice and helpful

This Helped Me With My Speech!!!

I can give it 100 stars for the speech it is amazing i love it.

Its amazing!!

Great !!!! It is an advanced definition and detail about Pollution. The word limit is also sufficient. It helped me a lot.

This is very good

Very helpful in my speech

Oh my god, this saved my life. You can just copy and paste it and change a few words. I would give this 4 out of 5 stars, because I had to research a few words. But my teacher didn’t know about this website, so amazing.

Tomorrow is my exam . This is Very helpfull

It’s really very helpful

yah it’s is very cool and helpful for me… a lot of 👍👍👍

Very much helpful and its well crafted and expressed. Thumb’s up!!!

wow so amazing it helped me that one of environment infact i was given a certificate

check it out travel and tourism voucher

thank you very much

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Speech on The Internet

Long Speech on the Internet

A heartfelt welcome to all of you present. I want to take this opportunity and share a few thoughts with you about the internet. 

The ushering of the 21st century has brought about a host of changes, the advent of the internet being one of them. To put it in simpler terms, the internet is a virtual network that allows connections on a global scale by means of the world wide web. The internet has ushered in an era of revolution allowing fast connectivity and a whirlpool of resources and information at one’s disposal. The internet has, in true meaning, made the world smaller on a global scale. 

As the new millennium progressed, the internet became an indispensable tool. The ease of finding information, the ability to connect instantly became so ingrained in people that imagining a life without the internet seems nearly impossible these days. The internet has brought about many benefits. With a boom in the technological sector, it has created a host of jobs in various fields. Work which in the pre-internet era would require a significant amount of time could be done within a matter of hours. People nowadays no longer have to wait for days or months to be able to communicate with someone. Facilities such as banking, financial transactions, purchasing, have all been made streamlined owing to the internet. 

As seen in recent years, the educational sector has also witnessed a major shift, be it the availability of resources or in delivering information, all due to the use of the internet. The vast repository of information available on the internet has enabled the development of quicker and more efficient learning modules and outcomes. Online learning has become the new norm these days. Moreover, the use of the internet has allowed for a more holistic approach to learning with learners now able to audio-visualize as they gather new knowledge and information. The internet, in short, has become a new learning tool. 

We must, however, be aware of the fact that with its many advantages, the internet has also brought about a host of disadvantages. The personal information out there on the internet always remains at the risk of falling into the wrong hands. Cybercrimes are a common occurrence these days, ranging from the hacking of personal records for harming someone in particular to the commitment of major banking frauds. 

In my concluding remarks, I would like to say that the internet has become both the boon and bane of our existence. To quote, ‘the internet is a necessary evil’. So it is up to us how we make the most out of it all, ensuring that no other individual is adversely affected because of the same. It also remains our responsibility to safeguard our information to the maximum extent possible and prevent it from being misused in any way. As we make significant strides in the advancement of civilization, it is important that we make use of the internet for the betterment of society as a whole. 

Short Speech

Speech on the internet.

A warm welcome to all the esteemed ladies and gentlemen. I would like to share a few words on the topic of the internet. 

The Internet has become the grain of our existence in the modern-day world. From studies to pharmaceuticals, to groceries to banking, we have the privilege of having the entire world at our fingertips, thanks to the internet. People across the globe are connected today by means of what is known as the world wide web, or popularly, the internet. Gone are the days when people had to wait for hours, weeks or even months to hear from their beloved ones. With the advent of the internet, we can now connect to someone within a matter of minutes. 

The era of the internet ushered in with the dawn of the new millennium. What started with the big metropolitan cities, is not available in even the remotest villages. The internet has brought about a revolution in several industrial sectors. In recent years, the education industry also saw a major shift owing to the prevalence of the internet. However, with everything good going on, the usage of the internet has also brought along the ill effects. Practices such as cybercrimes, online fraudulent activity, hacking, etc. are on the rise. Such has been the extent of the ill-effects of the internet that people had to lose their lives as well. 

So, as we move forward with the use of the internet in our day-to-day lives, we must make sure to remain vigilant and safe in order to not fall prey or indulge in any sort of harmful practices. The Internet can prove to be a great boon if used judiciously. 

10 Lines Speech

Hello to everyone present. Today, I am going to present a speech on the internet. 

The internet, as we all know, is a vast network that connects people across the world. The Internet allows us to have a wide range of information on any topic with just a simple click. In addition to information, the internet also helps us to communicate with people across the world. The internet serves as the connecting point for millions of devices by means of the world wide web. The Internet has proven to be very beneficial in our daily lives. Be it obtaining knowledge or information, purchasing commodities, or making payments, everything has become much simpler with the internet. However, there are also various ill-effects of the internet taking place by means of online fraud, loss of personal information, etc.

To conclude, I would like to say that the internet has both its advantages and disadvantages. It is up to us to make the best of it and use it wisely. 

Hello everyone.

Today I am here to present my views on the internet. The Internet today has become a necessity. Only a few years ago, it was a luxury only a few could afford. But with the development of technology, the internet has been made accessible and feasible to everyone in society. With the worldwide web(WWW) being its biggest service, it is now connecting millions of people all over the world. The Internet is one of the crucial inventions of humankind. The development of the internet has led to recent media replacing traditional newspapers and journalism. It has led to instant messaging and video communication replacing postcards and manually written letters. 

Traditional cinema has been replaced by OTT platforms serving entertainment at the comfort of one’s house. The Internet has replaced offline stores as well. With all the development that has happened over the years due to the invention of the internet, One cannot simply assume that there are no ill effects of it. 

The whole world is connected via the internet. It is a good thing, it also means that quality time with friends and family in person holds less value, and there is no escape from work. 

The Internet is addictive, and if there are no proper boundaries for using it, It can cause ill effects on the human mind as well as other areas of life. Lack of sleep is a common problem seen in students today. Social media and the rise of video platforms like youtube have only made it difficult to restrict the use of the internet.

 I do want to shed some light on the advantages of the internet. The internet is by far the most amazing invention.

Overflow of Information

The Internet is the sea of abundant information. The information that has been searched for is just one google search away. There is a tonne of resources available for anything that is needed. Be it any query or a recipe or a course of photography, one can always find a solution to the internet.

Education for All

In the era of online learning, not only are the students benefited by the internet, but also the people who do not have the time to attend classes in person. So many housewives have turned to their hobbies by joining online classes, The students can now get viable information on any subject by surfing the internet. The Internet comes in handy when one needs to know things fast, and now. Education is accessible for all now and this is the boon of the internet. Teachers can teach via online portals no matter where they are in the world. They can also upload pre-recorded videos online so that the students can watch them at their convenience. One can learn any skill they wish to learn and the internet has at least one or two resources or courses regarding the same. 

Online Services

With the online world dominating the internet, Every domain has come under the influence of it, even the services industry as well. With just one click one can order restaurant-cooked food, buy new clothes and book a spa appointment, and also consult a doctor. This convenience provided by the internet has helped humans do more things and not waste time. The best examples include Flipkart, Amazon, and Zomato. Buying and ordering things online has become easy and accessible to all. Even emails can be delivered with just one click, and money transfers can be done on the computers and one need not visit the bank for it.

Social Media

The one thing that has to be highlighted while talking about the internet is the importance of social media.

Social media’s rapid growth has made us feel connected. We are just one click away from talking to the person staying across the globe. Platforms like Youtube, Instagram, Facebook let you share your story, and ideas over the internet free of cost. They bring forth the creativity of humans. 

Online Business

The trend of online businesses is not just a trend anymore, they are replacing the traditional business run from the brick and mortar stores. Every business right now has a website and an online store. It is so convenient to market the business when it has a social media presence. The business can make a name globally and reach more target audiences, and this will in turn help in making profits. 

The internet has a lot of advantages and disadvantages. Although, it is upon the user to be cautious, to not overindulge on the internet. For everything is turned into a disadvantage when not done with precautions. Setting healthy boundaries around the usage of the internet can be super beneficial in the long term.

• Ethics & Leadership
• Fact-Checking
• Media Literacy
• The Craig Newmark Center
• Reporting & Editing
• Ethics & Trust
• Tech & Tools
• Business & Work
• Educators & Students
• Training Catalog
• Custom Teaching
• For ACES Members
• All Categories
• Broadcast & Visual Journalism
• Fact-Checking & Media Literacy
• In-newsroom
• Memphis, Tenn.
• Minneapolis, Minn.
• St. Petersburg, Fla.
• Washington, D.C.
• Poynter ACES Introductory Certificate in Editing
• Poynter ACES Intermediate Certificate in Editing
• Ethics & Trust Articles
• Get Ethics Advice
• Fact-Checking Articles
• International Fact-Checking Day
• Teen Fact-Checking Network
• International
• Media Literacy Training
• MediaWise Resources
• Ambassadors
• MediaWise in the News

Support responsible news and fact-based information today!

What you need to know about Section 230, the ‘most important law protecting internet speech’

Section 230 grants broad legal protections to websites that host user-generated content, like facebook and google..

A law credited with birthing the internet — and with spurring misinformation — has drawn bipartisan ire from lawmakers who are vowing to change it.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields internet platforms from liability for much of what its users post.

Both Democrats and Republicans point to Section 230 as a law that gives too much protection to companies like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Amazon and Google — with different reasons.

Former President Donald Trump wanted changes to Section 230 and  vetoed  a military spending bill in December because it didn’t include them. President Joe Biden has  said  that he’d be in favor of revoking the provision altogether. Biden’s pick for commerce secretary  said  she will pursue changes to Section 230 if confirmed.

There are  several bills  in Congress that would repeal Section 230 or amend its scope in order to limit the power of the platforms. In response,  even tech companies  have called for revising a law they say is outdated.

“In the offline world, it’s not just the person who pulls the trigger, or makes the threat or causes the damage — we hold a lot of people accountable,” said Mary Anne Franks, a law professor at the University of Miami. “Section 230 and the way it’s been interpreted essentially says none of those rules apply here.”

How did Section 230 come to be, and how could potential reforms affect the internet? We consulted the law and its experts to find out. (Have a question we didn’t answer here? Send it to  [email protected] .)

What is Section 230?

Donna Rice Hughes, of the anti-pornography organization Enough is Enough, meets reporters outside the Supreme Court in Washington Wednesday, March 19, 1997, after the court heard arguments challenging the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The court, in its first look at free speech on the Internet, was asked to uphold a law that made it a crime to put indecent words or pictures online where children can find them. They struck it down. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Congress passed the Communications Decency Act as Title V of the  Telecommunications Act of 1996 , when an increasing number of Americans  started to use  the internet. Its original purpose was to prohibit making “indecent” or “patently offensive” material available to children.

In 1997, the Supreme Court  struck down  the Communications Decency Act as an unconstitutional violation of free speech. But one of its provisions survived and, ironically, laid the groundwork for protecting online speech.

Section 230  says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

That provision, grounded in the language of First Amendment law,  grants broad legal protections  to websites that host user-generated content. It essentially means they can’t be sued for libel or defamation for user posts. Section 230 is especially important to social media platforms, but it also protects news sites that allow reader comments or auction sites that let users sell products or services.

RELATED TRAINING: Pay Attention: Legal Issues and Your Media Company

“Section 230 is understood primarily as a reaction to state court cases threatening to hold online service providers liable for (possible) libels committed by their users,” said Tejas Narechania, an assistant law professor at the University of California-Berkeley.

Section 230 changed that. For example, if a Facebook user publishes something defamatory, Facebook itself can’t be sued for defamation, but the post’s original author can be. That’s different from publishers like the New York Times, which can be held liable for content they publish — even if they didn’t originate the offending claim.

There are some exceptions in Section 230, including for copyright infringement and violations of federal and state law. But in general, the provision grants social media platforms  far more leeway  than other industries in the U.S.

Why does it matter?

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), one of the authors of Section 230, in 2021. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via AP, Pool)

Section 230 is the reason that you can post photos on Instagram, find search results on Google and list items on eBay. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit digital rights group,  calls it  “the most important law protecting internet speech.”

Section 230  is generally considered  to be speech-protective, meaning that it allows for more content rather than less on internet platforms. That objective was baked into the law.

In crafting Section 230, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., “both recognized that the internet had the potential to create a new industry,” wrote Jeff Kosseff in  “The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet .”

“Section 230, they hoped, would allow technology companies to freely innovate and create open platforms for user content,” Kosseff wrote. “Shielding internet companies from regulation and lawsuits would encourage investment and growth, they thought.”

Wyden and Cox were right — today, American tech platforms like Facebook and Google  have billions of users  and are among the wealthiest companies in the world. But they’ve also become vehicles for  disinformation  and  hate speech , in part because Section 230 left it up to the platforms themselves to decide how to moderate content.

Until relatively recently, most companies took a light touch to moderation of content that’s not illegal, but still problematic. (PolitiFact, for example, participates in programs run by Facebook and TikTok to  fight misinformation. )

“You don’t have to devote any resources to make your products and services safe or less harmful — you can solely go towards profit-making,” said Franks, the law professor. “Section 230 has gone way past the idea of gentle nudges toward moderation, towards essentially it doesn’t matter if you moderate or not.”

Without Section 230, tech companies would be forced to think about their legal liability in an entirely different way.

“Without Section 230, companies could be sued for their users’ blog posts, social media ramblings of homemade online videos,” Kosseff wrote. “The mere prospect of such lawsuits would force websites and online service providers to reduce or entirely prohibit user-generated content.”

Has the law changed?

The law has changed a little bit since 1996.

Section 230’s first major challenge came in 1997, when America Online was sued for failing to remove libelous ads that erroneously connected a man’s phone number to the Oklahoma City bombing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit  ruled  in favor of AOL, citing Section 230.

“That’s the case that basically set out very expansive protection,” said Olivier Sylvain, a law professor at Fordham University. “It held that even when an intermediary, AOL in this case, knows about unlawful content … it still is not obliged under law to take that stuff down.”

That’s different from how the First Amendment treats other distributors, such as booksellers. But the legal protections aren’t limitless.

In 2008, the Ninth Circuit appeals court  ruled  that Roommates.com could not claim immunity from anti-discrimination laws for requiring users to choose the preferred traits of potential roommates. Section 230 was  further weakened  in 2018 when Trump  signed  a package of bills aimed at limiting online human trafficking.

The package created an exception that held websites liable for ads for prostitution. As a result, Craigslist  shut down  its section for personal ads and certain Reddit groups  were banned .

What reforms are being considered?

Sen. Joshua Hawley (R-Mo.) is one of several senators who has introduced a bill to modify or repeal Section 230. (Graeme Jennings/Pool via AP)

In 2020, following  a Trump executive order  on “preventing online censorship,” the Justice Department  published a review  of Section 230. In it, the department recommended that Congress revise the law to include carve-outs for “egregious content” related to child abuse, terrorism and cyber-stalking. The review also proposed revoking Section 230 immunity in cases where a platform had “actual knowledge or notice” that a piece of content was unlawful.

The Justice Department review came out the same day that Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.,  introduced a bill  that  would require companies  to revise their terms of service to include a “duty of good faith” and more transparency about their moderation policies. A flurry of other Republican-led efforts came in January after  Twitter banned Trump  from its platform. Some proposals  would make  Section 230 protections conditional, while others  would repeal  the provision altogether.

Democrats have instead focused on reforming Section 230 to hold platforms accountable for harmful content like hate speech,  targeted harassment  and  drug dealing .  One proposal   would require  platforms to explain their moderation practices and to produce quarterly reports on content takedowns. The Senate Democrats’ SAFE Tech Act  would  revoke legal protections for platforms where payments are involved.

That last proposal is aimed at reining in online advertising abuses, but critics say even small changes to Section 230 could have unintended consequences for free speech on the internet. Still, experts say it’s time for change.

“Section 230 is a statute — it is not a constitutional norm, it’s not free speech — and it was written at a time when people were worried about electronic bulletin boards and newsgroups. They were not thinking about amplification, recommendations and targeted advertising,” Sylvain said. “Most people agree that the world in 1996 is not the world in 2021.”

This article was originally  published by PolitiFact , which is part of the Poynter Institute. It is republished here with permission. See the sources for these facts checks  here  and more of their fact-checks  here .

More about Section 230

• What journalists should know about Communications Decency Act Section 230
• Opinion: It’s time to repeal the law that gives social media sites immunity for anything their users post
• Americans want some online misinformation removed, but aren’t sure who should do it

Opinion | Is there a feud between the White House and New York Times?

Politico reports – and the Times denies – changes in coverage due to ire over not getting a one-on-one interview with the president.

Opinion | A conversation with White House Correspondents’ Association president Kelly O’Donnell

Advocating for her press corps colleagues has become a second full-time job for NBC News' senior White House correspondent.

Hunter Biden was indicted twice. A claim that he and others have escaped criminal charges is wrong.

Donald Trump faces dozens of criminal charges, but it’s inaccurate to claim that others including Hunter Biden were never charged with any crimes.

Opinion | The case for funding environmental journalism right now

Philanthropy has an important role to play in supporting reporters, but funding must be transparent and clear to maintain credibility

How Poynter transformed a hands-on workshop into an email course

Lessons learned from an experiment in building a new journalism project

Start your day informed and inspired.

Get the Poynter newsletter that's right for you.

Internet Speech

The ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

ACLU Commends the FCC’s Restoration of Net Neutrality Regulations

ACLU, Civil-Society Groups, Urge Congress to Extend Funding for Affordable Internet Program

ACLU Commends FCC Efforts to Restore Net Neutrality Rules

ACLU Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Preliminary Injunctions Against Laws that Would Allow the Government to Regulate Editorial Discretion on Social Media

Explore more, what we're focused on.

Communications Decency Act Section 230

Net neutrality, online anonymity and identity, what's at stake.

The digital revolution has produced the most diverse, participatory, and amplified communications medium humans have ever had: the Internet. The ACLU believes in an uncensored Internet, a vast free-speech zone deserving at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to traditional media such as books, newspapers, and magazines.

The ACLU has been at the forefront of protecting online freedom of expression in its myriad forms. We brought the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared speech on the Internet equally worthy of the First Amendment’s historical protections. In that case, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union , the Supreme Court held that the government can no more restrict a person’s access to words or images on the Internet than it can snatch a book out of someone’s hands or cover up a nude statue in a museum.

But that principle has not prevented constant new threats to Internet free speech. The ACLU remains vigilant against laws or policies that create new decency restrictions for online content, limit minors’ access to information, or allow the unmasking of anonymous speakers without careful court scrutiny.

• Speech Topics For Kids

Speech on Internet

The term ‘internet’ is a commonly discussed topic because of its prominence in today’s world. It is also one of the topics that is chosen for speeches. Now, if you are asked to write a speech on internet, what points would you include? Confused! Well, this article will walk you through all the points that you can include in your speech. Check it out.

Table of Contents

Speech on the importance of internet, disadvantages of internet.

• FAQs on Speech on the Internet

The internet has become an indispensable part of everyday life. The internet was first invented by Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf . While internet has many advantages, it does have disadvantages too. The following section speaks about the advantages of the internet.

• Free material availability – Many students can’t afford expensive books, so the internet serves as the best way for them to avail free study materials. The internet gives scope to many kids to go through various study materials and choose from a wide range of information.
• Facilitates online learning – With the COVID-19, study and work became completely online. The availability of the internet is what allowed students to attend classes, sitting at their homes. This made learning possible even in the midst of the pandemic.
• Connects people from far and wide – Many of our family members and friends stay at different places and with the internet, it has become easy for us to catch up with them through video calls or emails. Before this, people had to pay a huge amount of money to connect with their beloved ones who were living far away from them.
• Start a business – Many of you might have heard about online business. If one is planning to start a small business, one can easily do so with the internet.

A good speech on the internet will include both advantages and disadvantages. You already what the advantages are; now, let us look at some of the disadvantages of the internet.

• Overuse – One of the disadvantages is overuse. The internet has always attracted more and more people from the time of its existence. The pandemic just elevated this situation. With the introduction of online classes, students got to use their phones for a longer time, which in turn, increased their screen hours. This is true in the case of adults as well.
• Loss of creativity and imagination – With the internet giving answers to every question people have and giving ideas for any topic, the creative and imaginative intellect of children and adults alike have drastically dropped. Most often, it is not being used at all.

The internet has, for sure, opened doors to multiple possibilities. It has a lot that can teach you about anything and everything under the sun. It is in the hands of the users to use it wisely and beneficially, without causing any harm to the others.

Frequently Asked Questions on Speech on Internet

Who invented the internet.

The internet was first invented by Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

• Skip to main content

India’s Largest Career Transformation Portal

Speech on Internet for Students & Children in English [3 Minutes]

December 10, 2020 by Sandeep

Speech on Internet: Internet is one of the smartest revolutionary inventions of mankind. It has broken distance barriers and made the world a small place to live in. With the internet, we can access any information at our fingertips at lightning speeds. We require computers/ laptops/ smartphones to access the internet easily. 4G technologies have made internet access super paced and very fast. Robert E Kahn and Vincent Cerf invented the internet. Internet is used for learning, shopping, banking, booking tickets, etc.

Speech on Internet 500 Words In English

Below we have provided a speech on Internet, written in easy and simple words for class 7, 8, 9 and 10 school students.

Good morning to everyone present over here. Today I am here to deliver my speech on the internet. John Stewart has rightly said that “ The internet is just a world passing notes around a classroom.”

The internet has brought the world too close today; the physical distance is no more a real distance between anyone. The internet has made our lives easy & comfortable. Most advances in technologies are attributed to the internet in today’s world. It is one of the most significant inventions which has completely changed the way we live.

Internet is a network facility which helps in sharing information. It was invented 40 years back by Robert E. Kahn and Vint Cerf for sending emails. It has transformed a lot in last with time. We all use internet today, let it be on our mobile phones, computers or laptops for different purposes. Many of us may be using it for office work, learning, some for shopping, playing & many more.

Restaurants, malls, transportation, and banking everywhere the internet is playing a significant role. It is an excellent source of knowledge & valuable resources for learning. The primary entertainment sources for today’s world is internet. Let it be music, song, dance, series or movie everything is available just a click away. We can connect to our loved ones, a thousand kilometres away just by doing a video call. For many internet has become the source of income, people have started earning by writing blogs, etc. The usage of internet is uncountable.

Though internet is an excellent servant, it does have some ill effects. Misuse of information & fraud is increasing day by day. Cybercrimes have become a significant concern which is getting monitored closely. The influence of social media is so hyped among people that people are ready to do anything for getting famous. People are unnecessarily spending time which has created problems in their social lives. Believing internet blindly has become a common practice which has resulted in the circulation of fake news.

We all cannot deny that the internet has become a part of our life. It is not easy to spend a day without the internet. So we all need to maintain the balance between the positive & negative impacts of the internet. Judicious use with proper precautions will prove the internet to be a boon for humanity. Let us join hands & pledge to use the greatest invention of time for transforming the world in the right way.

Short Speech on Internet 150 Words

Find below a short speech on the Internet in English, suitable for class 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 students.

A very welcome to all of you to the session of discussion on the internet. Internet is not new to anyone us. It was invented 40 years back by Robert E. Kahn and Vint Cerf with its very first use in the United States to send emails. Today there are 3.5 billion users in the world & you are one of them. Talking about the usage of the internet, it has left no fields untouched. Today we can book our travelling tickets online; we need not make a queue. We can shop sitting at home from a variety of options; we need not step out to market.

We can also take the consultation of doctors, which is just a click away. We do not wait anymore to meet our near & dear ones; we connect to them through video calls. Getting bored need not wait for a TV program; we have plenty of options available online. Even today, people are searching for their soulmates on the internet. Even students are nowadays dependent only on online sources for learning. Not only these, internet has completely transformed the life we once lived in. You all will agree that it has made our life simpler & more comfortable for us.

However, we all know that a coin has two sides, one good & bad. Till now, I only highlighted the best part of the internet. Let me tell you the internet can have numerous negative impacts if we do not use it cautiously.The illegal works, fraud or we can say cyber crimes are increasing day by day. People are wasting time on internet instead of using the valuable time. People have started living virtual life with no understanding of the world outside. Children are spending more time playing online games instead of any physical activities.

All these issues are leading us to a bigger problem. We all being aware of the pros & cons of usage of the internet and must be alert enough to use it in the right way. It is one of the greatest inventions of humanity which can be solely used for the development of the people globally. So let us join our hands & work together in that direction to use the internet for the useful transformations only.

Internet Speech Will Never Go Back to Normal

In the debate over freedom versus control of the global network, China was largely correct, and the U.S. was wrong.

Updated at 3:15 p.m. ET on April 27, 2020.

C OVID-19 has emboldened American tech platforms to emerge from their defensive crouch. Before the pandemic, they were targets of public outrage over life under their dominion. Today, the platforms are proudly collaborating with one another, and following government guidance , to censor harmful information related to the coronavirus. And they are using their prodigious data-collection capacities, in coordination with federal and state governments, to improve contact tracing, quarantine enforcement, and other health measures. As Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg recently boasted , “The world has faced pandemics before, but this time we have a new superpower: the ability to gather and share data for good.”

Civil-rights groups are tolerating these measures—emergency times call for emergency measures—but are also urging a swift return to normal when the virus ebbs. We need “to make sure that, when we’ve made it past this crisis, our country isn’t transformed into a place we don’t want to live,” warns the American Civil Liberties Union’s Jay Stanley. “Any extraordinary measures used to manage a specific crisis must not become permanent fixtures in the landscape of government intrusions into daily life,” declares the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital-rights group. These are real worries, since, as the foundation notes, “life-saving programs such as these, and their intrusions on digital liberties, [tend] to outlive their urgency.”

But the “extraordinary” measures we are seeing are not all that extraordinary. Powerful forces were pushing toward greater censorship and surveillance of digital networks long before the coronavirus jumped out of the wet markets in Wuhan, China, and they will continue to do so once the crisis passes. The practices that American tech platforms have undertaken during the pandemic represent not a break from prior developments, but an acceleration of them.

Read: No, the internet is not good again

As surprising as it may sound, digital surveillance and speech control in the United States already show many similarities to what one finds in authoritarian states such as China. Constitutional and cultural differences mean that the private sector, rather than the federal and state governments, currently takes the lead in these practices, which further values and address threats different from those in China. But the trend toward greater surveillance and speech control here, and toward the growing involvement of government, is undeniable and likely inexorable.

In the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong. Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society’s norms and values.

B eginning in the 1990s , the U.S. government and powerful young tech firms began promoting nonregulation and American-style freedom of speech as essential features of the internet. This approach assumed that authoritarian states would crumble in the face of digital networks that seemed to have American constitutional values built into them. The internet was a vehicle for spreading U.S. civil and political values; more speech would mean better speech platforms, which in turn would lead to democratic revolutions around the world.

China quickly became worried about unregulated digital speech—both as a threat to the Communist Party’s control and to the domestic social order more generally. It began building ever more powerful mechanisms of surveillance and control to meet these threats. Other authoritarian nations would follow China’s lead. In 2009, China, Russia, and other members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation announced their “ agreement on cooperation in the field of international information security .” The agreement presciently warned of a coming “information war,” in which internet platforms would be weaponized in ways that would threaten nations’ “social and political systems.”

Evelyn Douek: The internet’s titans make a power grab

During the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, the United States helped secure digital freedoms for people living in authoritarian states. It gave them resources to support encryption and filter-evasion products that were designed to assist individuals in “circumventing politically motivated censorship,” as then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it in 2010 . And it openly assisted Twitter and other U.S. tech platforms that seemed to be fueling the Arab Spring.

In these and so many other ways, the public internet in its first two decades seemed good for open societies and bad for closed ones. But this conventional wisdom turned out to be mostly backwards. China and other authoritarian states became adept at reverse engineering internet architecture to enhance official control over digital networks in their countries and thus over their populations. And in recent years, the American public has grown fearful of ubiquitous digital monitoring and has been reeling from the disruptive social effects of digital networks.

Two events were wake-up calls. The first was Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013 about the astonishing extent of secret U.S. government monitoring of digital networks at home and abroad. The U.S. government’s domestic surveillance is legally constrained, especially compared with what authoritarian states do. But this is much less true of private actors. Snowden’s documents gave us a glimpse of the scale of surveillance of our lives by U.S. tech platforms, and made plain how the government accessed privately collected data to serve its national-security needs.

The second wake-up call was Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. As Barack Obama noted, the most consequential misinformation campaign in modern history was “not particularly sophisticated—this was not some elaborate, complicated espionage scheme.” Russia used a simple phishing attack and a blunt and relatively limited social-media strategy to disrupt the legitimacy of the 2016 election and wreak still-ongoing havoc on the American political system. The episode showed how easily a foreign adversary could exploit the United States’ deep reliance on relatively unregulated digital networks. It also highlighted how legal limitations grounded in the First Amendment (freedom of speech and press) and the Fourth Amendment (privacy) make it hard for the U.S. government to identify, prevent, and respond to malicious cyber operations from abroad.

These constitutional limits help explain why, since the Russian electoral interference, digital platforms have taken the lead in combatting all manner of unwanted speech on their networks—and, if anything, have increased their surveillance of our lives. But the government has been in the shadows of these developments, nudging them along and exploiting them when it can.

T en years ago, speech on the American Internet was a free-for-all. There was relatively little monitoring and censorship—public or private—of what people posted, said, or did on Facebook, YouTube, and other sites. In part, this was due to the legal immunity that platforms enjoyed under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act . And in part it was because the socially disruptive effects of digital networks—various forms of weaponized speech and misinformation—had not yet emerged. As the networks became filled with bullying, harassment, child sexual exploitation, revenge porn, disinformation campaigns, digitally manipulated videos, and other forms of harmful content, private platforms faced growing pressure from governments and users to fix the problems.

The result a decade later is that most of our online speech now occurs in closely monitored playpens where many tens of thousands of human censors review flagged content to ensure compliance with ever-lengthier and more detailed “ community standards ” (or some equivalent ). More and more, this human monitoring and censorship is supported—or replaced—by sophisticated computer algorithms. The firms use these tools to define acceptable forms of speech and other content on their platforms, which in turn sets the effective boundaries for a great deal of speech in the U.S. public forum.

After the 2016 election debacle, for example, the tech platforms took aggressive but still imperfect steps to fend off foreign adversaries. YouTube has an aggressive policy of removing what it deems to be deceptive practices and foreign-influence operations related to elections . It also makes judgments about and gives priority to what it calls “ authoritative voices .” Facebook has deployed a multipronged strategy that includes removing fake accounts and eliminating or demoting “inauthentic behavior.” Twitter has a similar censorship policy aimed at “platform manipulation originating from bad-faith actors located in countries outside of the US.”  These platforms have engaged in “ strategic collaboration ” with the federal government, including by sharing information , to fight foreign electoral interference.

The platforms are also cooperating with one another and with international organizations, and sometimes law enforcement, on other censorship practices. This collaboration began with a technology that allows child pornography to be assigned a digital fingerprint and placed in centralized databases that the platforms draw on to suppress the material. A similar mechanism has been deployed against terrorist speech—a more controversial practice, since the label terrorist often involves inescapably political judgments. Sharing and coordination across platforms are also moving forward on content related to electoral interference and are being discussed for the manipulated videos known as deepfakes . The danger with “ content cartels ,” as the writer Evelyn Douek dubs these collaborations, is that they diminish accountability for censorship decisions and make invariable mistakes more pervasive and harder to fix.

And of course, mistakes are inevitable. Much of the content that the platforms censor—for example, child pornography and content that violates intellectual-property rights—is relatively easy to identify and uncontroversial to remove. But Facebook, for example, also takes down hate speech, terrorist propaganda, “cruel and insensitive” speech, and bullying speech, which are harder to identify objectively and more controversial to regulate or remove. Facebook publishes data on its enforcement of its rules. They show that the firm makes “mistakes”—defined by its own flexible criteria—in about 15 percent of the appealed cases involving supposed bullying and about 10 percent of the appealed hate-speech cases .

All these developments have taken place under pressure from Washington and Brussels. In hearings over the past few years, Congress has criticized the companies—not always in consistent ways—for allowing harmful speech. In 2018, Congress amended the previously untouchable Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to subject the platforms to the same liability that nondigital outlets face for enabling illegal sex trafficking. Additional amendments to Section 230 are now in the offing, as are various other threats to regulate digital speech. In March 2019, Zuckerberg invited the government to regulate “harmful content” on his platform. In a speech seven months later defending America’s First Amendment values, he boasted about his “team of thousands of people and [artificial-intelligence] systems” that monitors for fake accounts. Even Zuckerberg’s defiant ideal of free expression is an extensively policed space.

Against this background, the tech firms’ downgrading and outright censorship of speech related to COVID-19 are not large steps. Facebook is using computer algorithms more aggressively, mainly because concerns about the privacy of users prevent human censors from working on these issues from home during forced isolation. As it has done with Russian misinformation, Facebook will notify users when articles that they have “liked” are later deemed to have included health-related misinformation.

But the basic approach to identifying and redressing speech judged to be misinformation or to present an imminent risk of physical harm “ hasn’t changed ,” according to Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of global policy management. As in other contexts, Facebook relies on fact-checking organizations and “authorities” (from the World Health Organization to the governments of U.S. states) to ascertain which content to downgrade or remove.

Read: How to misinform yourself about the coronavirus

What is different about speech regulation related to COVID-19 is the context: The problem is huge and the stakes are very high. But when the crisis is gone, there is no unregulated “normal” to return to. We live—and for several years, we have been living—in a world of serious and growing harms resulting from digital speech. Governments will not stop worrying about these harms. And private platforms will continue to expand their definition of offensive content, and will use algorithms to regulate it ever more closely. The general trend toward more speech control will not abate.

O ver the past decade , network surveillance has grown in roughly the same proportion as speech control. Indeed, on many platforms, ubiquitous surveillance is a prerequisite to speech control.

The public has been told over and over that the hundreds of computers we interact with daily—smartphones, laptops, desktops, automobiles, cameras, audio recorders, payment mechanisms, and more—collect, emit, and analyze data about us that are, in turn, packaged and exploited in various ways to influence and control our lives. We have also learned a lot—but surely not the whole picture—about the extent to which governments exploit this gargantuan pool of data.

Police use subpoenas to tap into huge warehouses of personal data collected by private companies. They have used these tools to gain access to doorbell cameras that now line city bloc ks , microphones in the Alexa devices in millions of homes, privately owned license-plate readers that track every car , and the data in DNA databases that people voluntarily pay to enter. They also get access to information collected on smart-home devices and home-surveillance cameras—a growing share of which are capable of facial recognition—to solve crimes. And they pay to access private tow trucks equipped with cameras tracking the movements of cars throughout a city.

Derek Thompson: The technology that could free America from quarantine

In other cases, federal, state, and local governments openly work in conjunction with the private sector to expand their digital surveillance. One of the most popular doorbell cameras, Ring, which is owned by Amazon, has forged video-sharing partnerships with more than 400 law-enforcement agencies in the United States. Ring actively courted law-enforcement agencies by offering discounted cameras to local police departments, which offered them to residents. The departments would then use social media to encourage citizens to download Ring’s neighborhood application, where neighbors post videos and discuss ostensibly suspicious activity spotted on their cameras. (A Ring spokeswoman said the company no longer offers free or discounted cameras to law enforcement.) *

Meanwhile, the company Clearview AI provides law-enforcement agents with the ability to scan an image of a face across a database of billions of faces, scraped from popular apps and websites such as Facebook and YouTube. More than 600 law-enforcement agencies are now using Clearview’s database.

These developments are often greeted with blockbuster news reports and indignant commentary. And yet Americans keep buying surveillance machines and giving their data away. Smart speakers such as the Amazon Echo and Google Home are in about a third of U.S. households . In 2019, American consumers bought almost 80 million new smartphones that can choose among millions of apps that collect, use, and distribute all manner of personal data.. Amazon does not release sales numbers for Ring, but one firm estimated that it sold almost 400,000 Ring security devices in December alone.

America’s private surveillance system goes far beyond apps, cameras, and microphones. Behind the scenes, and unbeknownst to most Americans, data brokers have developed algorithmic scores for each one of us—scores that rate us on reliability , propensity to repay loans , and likelihood to commit a crime . Uber bans passengers with low ratings from drivers. Some bars and restaurants now run background checks on their patrons to see whether they’re likely to pay their tab or cause trouble. Facebook has patented a mechanism for determining a person’s creditworthiness by evaluating their social network.

These and similar developments are the private functional equivalent of China’s social-credit ratings , which critics in the West so fervently decry. The U.S. government, too, makes important decisions based on privately collected pools of data. The Department of Homeland Security now requires visa applicants to submit their social-media accounts for review. And courts regularly rely on algorithms to determine a defendant’s flight risk, recidivism risk, and more.

The response to COVID-19 builds on all these trends, and shows how technical wizardry, data centralization, and private-public collaboration can do enormous public good. As Google and Apple effectively turn most phones in the world into contact-tracing tools , they have the ability to accomplish something that no government by itself could: nearly perfect location tracking of most the world’s population. That is why governments in the United States and around the world are working to take advantage of the tool the two companies are offering.

A pple and Google have told critics that their partnership will end once the pandemic subsides. Facebook has said that its aggressive censorship practices will cease when the crisis does. But when COVID-19 is behind us, we will still live in a world where private firms vacuum up huge amounts of personal data and collaborate with government officials who want access to that data. We will continue to opt in to private digital surveillance because of the benefits and conveniences that result. Firms and governments will continue to use the masses of collected data for various private and social ends.

Edward Tenner: Efficiency is biting back

The harms from digital speech will also continue to grow, as will speech controls on these networks. And invariably, government involvement will grow. At the moment, the private sector is making most of the important decisions, though often under government pressure. But as Zuckerberg has pleaded , the firms may not be able to regulate speech legitimately without heavier government guidance and involvement. It is also unclear whether, for example, the companies can adequately contain foreign misinformation and prevent digital tampering with voting mechanisms without more government surveillance.

The First and Fourth Amendments as currently interpreted, and the American aversion to excessive government-private-sector collaboration, have stood as barriers to greater government involvement. Americans’ understanding of these laws, and the cultural norms they spawned, will be tested as the social costs of a relatively open internet multiply.

COVID-19 is a window into these future struggles. At the moment, activists are pressuring Google and Apple to build greater privacy safeguards into their contact-tracing program. Yet the legal commentator Stewart Baker has argued that the companies are being too protective—that existing privacy accommodations will produce “a design that raises far too many barriers to effectively tracking infections.” Even some ordinarily privacy-loving European governments seem to agree with the need to ease restrictions for the sake of public health, but the extent to which the platforms will accommodate these concerns remains unclear.

We are about to find out how this trade-off will be managed in the United States. The surveillance and speech-control responses to COVID-19, and the private sector’s collaboration with the government in these efforts, are a historic and very public experiment about how our constitutional culture will adjust to our digital future.

* An earlier version of this article misstated the status of a now-discontinued Ring initiative providing local police with discounted cameras. The company no longer extends that offer.

What will changing Section 230 mean for the internet?

A virtual symposium on the internet’s most important law.

By Adi Robertson , a senior tech and policy editor focused on VR, online platforms, and free expression. Adi has covered video games, biohacking, and more for The Verge since 2011.

Share this story

Section 230, which turned 25 years old this month , has played a central role in shaping the internet . Over the past year, Congress has introduced several proposals to change the law — some of them drastic — but the bills have often focused on a handful of very large tech companies like Facebook and Google. In reality, Section 230 has created a lot of the web as we know it .

On Monday, March 1st, we’re holding an event on Section 230 and the future of tech regulation. After a keynote from Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), I’ll be sitting down with Wikimedia Foundation general counsel Amanda Keton, Vimeo general counsel Michael Cheah, and writer and strategist Sydette Harry to discuss how changing Section 230 could change the web. For a broader sense of its impact, however, I also spoke to a range of companies, nonprofits, legal experts, and others with a stake in preserving or reforming the law.

Laurent Crenshaw, head of policy at Patreon

Patreon is an online funding platform for artists, musicians, streamers, and other creatives. Founded in 2013, it supports over 200,000 creators with more than 6 million patrons. Its users include podcaster Joe Budden, musician Amanda Palmer, and news host Philip DeFranco.

Join us on March 1st at 2PM for a virtual event about tech regulation and antitrust — featuring a keynote and Q&A from Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Sign up here !

How does Section 230 impact Patreon?

Section 230 matters to Patreon every single day because we are a platform that has hundreds of thousands of creators, that has millions of patrons that are communicating with each other and the creators, and creators that are creating new works on a daily basis. If we had to proactively take steps to identify and monitor, validate, and verify that content prior to posting, it would be incredibly difficult for that platform to exist.

Even little tweaks, like when they talk about removing language around “otherwise objectionable” content, which really is what gives platforms the ability to have their own moderation guidelines — it’s just incredibly concerning. 

Because otherwise, we’re talking about a scenario where platforms are encouraged to not have any type of content moderation, while at the same time still potentially facing liability, or to have much more litigation directed at them without the protection that Section 230 provides.

Let’s say Section 230 gets repealed completely. What would the next year look like for Patreon?

We would do everything within our power to continue to be a platform that funds creators. But at the same time, I think we would have to reassess how we go about deciding who we can fund through the platform, if suddenly we have to consider whether or not we’ll be liable for any content we’re directly funding.

What about more moderate options in bills like the PACT Act, which would do things like require publishing transparent moderation guidelines?

Transparency reports are not the most controversial thing in the world. It’s something that we’re looking at doing in the future as well. Some of the items that are being proposed, like call centers, I think sound better on paper than necessarily in practice.

But at the end of the day, I think that honestly, any lawmaker proposals that are being considered need to make sure that they aren’t basically solving problems that are targeted towards larger companies, and at the same time, that they don’t throw the baby out bathwater in regards to creating a whole new sort of regulatory model — an approach that is overly burdensome.

Carrie Goldberg, author and victims’ rights attorney

Carrie Goldberg represents victims of online harassment, stalking, blackmail, and other crimes. She is the author of Nobody’s Victim: Fighting Psychos, Stalkers, Pervs, and Trolls , and she represented Grindr user Matthew Herrick in a high-profile lawsuit that was ultimately dismissed on Section 230 grounds.

What is the core effect that you see Section 230 having online?

It emboldens platforms to give zero fucks about users. Since users can’t hold platforms liable for harms caused, platforms have no incentive to invest in design and operations to reduce or mitigate injuries. And I’m not talking about harms like being called a bitch on Twitter. I’m talking about child abuse victims’ rapes being on porn sites, 1,200 men arriving at your home for a gangbang because somebody is impersonating you on Grindr.

“If you harm your users, you should be sued, no matter how big or small.”

What would be your proposed changes to the law?

First choice is to completely abolish Section 230. Our current civil legal system already has barriers to entry to prevent frivolous suits.

Second choice is eliminate the immunity for platforms that are solely in the business of being malicious, instances where a platform is put on notice of a harming user, and all causes of action alleging unlawful activity on platforms — especially dissemination of child sexual abuse material, child sexual exploitation, revenge porn, deepfakes, stalking, known rapists and abusers using dating apps.

What do you think of some of the more common proposed changes to Section 230, like Facebook’s suggestion that sites should be required to release transparency reports?

Facebook’s suggestion that it be required to release transparency reports is not a change to Section 230. Obviously, any proposal set forth by a platform should be regarded with side-eye. I want to throw up any time somebody suggests transparency as a fix. Transparency means nothing if nobody has the right to do anything about all the atrocities these companies are being transparent about.

One of the criticisms of Section 230 reforms is that sites like Facebook can afford to effectively litigate around them, while smaller forums without the same resources will be disproportionately affected. Is that a reasonable fear? If it is, do you see a way to mitigate it?

If you harm your users, you should be sued, no matter how big or small. The solution for small platforms is to honor the people using your product and make it safe. In no other industry is liability for harms based on the size of the business. My law firm of 13 employees can be sued just as easily for harms we cause as a law firm with 2000 employees. My solution is to honor and cherish my clients and not harm them.

If lawmakers did something like entirely repeal Section 230, how do you practically think the internet would change?

It would improve it.

Katie Jordan, director of public policy and technology for the Internet Society

The Internet Society is a nonprofit founded in 1992 by internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn. It supports efforts to increase internet access worldwide, construct community networks in unconnected areas, and maintain openness and security online.

What’s the Internet Society’s position on changing Section 230?

I think it’s a great goal to prevent misinformation and hate speech online, but I’m really not convinced that Section 230 is the right way to do that. The risks of change, or of unintended consequences, are significant. And I don’t know if we’re having a large enough conversation about what those risks are.

What sort of risks are you worried about?

When the Internet Society approaches intermediary liability protection, we look at the whole stack. Section 230 is not just about platforms like Facebook, Google, and Amazon. It’s also about the underlying infrastructure and the intermediaries that move content and data from one place to another, whether it’s cloud providers, domain name registries, email servers, things like that. 

If cloud providers get wrapped up in this conversation about pulling back intermediary liability protection, then by default, they’re going to have to reduce privacy and security practices because they’ll have to look at the content they’re storing for you, to know if they’re breaking the law.

“Section 230 is not just about platforms like Facebook, Google, and Amazon.”

How does that translate to actual pieces of legislation?

The more specific we can be about the goal, the better the legislation will be. So if we’re very clear that there is a problem on social media platforms with misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech, then our goal can be to fix those things. But a lot of the legislation we’ve seen is so broad that it would be very difficult to limit it to just those things.

I think it would be fairly easy to say, there is a public concern with a handful of platforms dealing with speech in a way that maybe is not in society’s best interest. Let’s start there and see what we can fix. Because my fear is that if we don’t look very closely at the target, the unintended consequences of this will be so far-reaching that it will do more harm than good.

Yiota Souras, senior vice president of general counsel for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

NCMEC is a government-funded nonprofit organization fighting the abduction, abuse, and exploitation of children. Among other work with victims and law enforcement, it operates the CyberTipline, a system for reporting child exploitation on the internet.

How does Section 230 affect your work at NCMEC?

Section 230 denies victims the ability to bring a lawsuit if they have been exploited in certain ways through or on a particular platform. And because social media companies have that immunity, it reduces the potential that companies will do the most they can to make sure child exploitation content is not posted, not distributed, and is taken down right away, because there is really no legal incentive or for them to take those extra steps.

“There is no legal requirement for them to use any kind of detection or screening”

Companies do have a lot of non-legal incentives, though, and many of them already put a lot of resources toward this problem. What kind of steps do you think adding legal liability would make them take?

There are a lot of companies, especially some of the very large companies, that engage in really tremendous voluntary measures. But there are a lot of companies that don’t, and there is no legal requirement for them to use any kind of detection or screening. I think the fact that there are some companies that are trying as hard as they can and devoting immense resources and are prioritizing this is great. But they’re just a handful of the companies out there.

There’s been one carveout already, FOSTA-SESTA, which removed liability protections for trafficking and sex work-related material. What has been the impact of that for you?

There have been a lot of ramifications. Backpage.com was taken down before FOSTA-SESTA, and what we’ve seen is that there has been no other central marketplace that’s come up and said “we’re Backpage 2.0.” It’s not normalized in the same way anymore.

So you think the value has been as a deterrent?

Right. And there have been some criminal and some civil cases that have moved forward representing victims against websites — some that involve a lot of claims, including FOSTA-SESTA. And they’re still working their way through court.

Maxine Doogan, president of the Erotic Service Providers Legal Education and Research Project

ESPLERP is a legal advocacy group supporting decriminalization and legal protection for sex workers. It was one of several organizations to oppose FOSTA-SESTA on the grounds that it penalized consensual sex work .

What’s been the impact of FOSTA-SESTA on sex workers?

It’s been a disaster. We lost a whole bunch of our sites, a whole bunch of our advertising. Now we have sites that are charging us huge amounts of money in bitcoin. I think Congress is very conscious of the position that they’re forcing us into, which is that, you know, a bunch of people have lost their jobs. A bunch of people have been forced back onto the streets. A bunch of people have been forced to work together in order to maintain their indoor location because the rents are so high — you could afford it before FOSTA-SESTA, now you can’t because you have less access to advertising. So now you have to share space.

“A bunch of people have lost their jobs. A bunch of people have been forced back onto the streets.”

What do you think of newer efforts to change Section 230?

They’re missing the point, and they’re missing the bigger issues that society has refused to address. 

What kinds of issues should lawmakers be focusing on?

They need an anti-discrimination law for all erotic service providers — we are discriminated against regardless of our legal or illegal status in housing, child custody, and access to education. Financial institutions are being allowed to systematically discriminate against us in access to them. They need to be providing us with some actual rights with their legislation, instead of continuing to strip our rights away from us.

Al Smith, communications strategist for the Tor Project

The Tor Project is the nonprofit behind Tor, an open-source encryption tool for remaining anonymous online. Tor is used by journalists communicating with whistleblowers, human rights activists living under repressive governments, and millions of others worldwide.

What does Section 230 mean for the Tor Project?

Tor relies on Section 230. Without it, the organization would be vulnerable to lawsuits brought by anyone who believes that a Tor user harmed them. For instance, because of Section 230, if someone uses Tor to protect their identity in order to criticize or report about a governmental official (something journalists and activists often do), Tor cannot be sued for facilitating or aiding and abetting or otherwise. Tor is a small nonprofit, and even a suit that was not meritorious could easily sink it.

“Tremendous collateral damage to important parts of the internet”

What do you think of some of the most common proposals for changing Section 230?

Overall, these proposals seem to be based on anger at Facebook and Google and a few other tech giants. A huge variety of tools are protected by Section 230, and most of the proposals for changing it will cause tremendous collateral damage to important parts of the internet like Wikimedia, the Internet Archive, and Tor.

There are a few specific proposals on the table, including rules that require services to remove illegal content. How would those affect you?

Because Tor does not host content, and because of the nature of the tool, it is impossible to know every single person and organization that uses its free, open-source technology. Tor could not comply with any “removal” requirements put forth by some proposals that change Section 230.

Any such law must differentiate between tools that store and host content and those that do not — Tor is the latter. Often these proposals are aimed at forcing tools like Tor to weaken or eliminate their use of encryption (e.g., EARN IT Act), and that would be extremely dangerous for all Tor (and all internet) users who need strong encryption to stay safe.

Since Tor is a global service, how much does Section 230 matter for people using it outside the US?

Section 230 is hugely important for people using Tor outside the United States. Many of our users outside of the US rely on Tor because, in order to stay safe and fight for a better world, they require encryption and security — human rights defenders, political dissidents, journalists, whistleblowers, domestic violence survivors looking to escape, and more. Any effort to “reform” Section 230 that makes Tor less secure or provides an opportunity for litigation against it for what its users do could be catastrophic for users around the world.

Mary Anne Franks, president of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative

Mary Anne Franks is a professor at the University of Miami School of Law as well as the president of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, an organization that combats civil rights abuses online. She also drafted the first model criminal statute banning nonconsensual pornography or “revenge porn” online.

What has Section 230’s impact been on the internet? What would the internet look like if it had never been passed?

The internet with Section 230 is like an auto industry with no safety regulations or a restaurant industry with no hygiene standards. Imagining an internet without Section 230 requires imagining what kinds of industry standards would have developed over the last 20 years if tech companies had not been assured that they could act as recklessly as they wanted without fear of liability.

How might companies have designed their platforms and services differently if they knew they could be held responsible for failing to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable harms? How much less likely would it be that the internet would be controlled by a tiny number of multibillion-dollar corporations wielding power without responsibility?

“How might companies have designed their platforms and services differently if they knew they could be held responsible?”

How deep should this responsibility go? Should infrastructure providers like Cloudflare, web hosts, and domain registrars be responsible for their customers’ content, or for the content their customers allow?

These kinds of questions are impossible to answer in advance because they are so contingent on the facts of particular situations, and Section 230 keeps them from getting to courts where they can be worked out.

In addition to very (some, like me, would say, overly) robust First Amendment protections, there are lots of challenges to holding a third party responsible for the conduct of someone else. If Section 230 were repealed tomorrow, it wouldn’t mean that Cloudflare or Facebook or any online intermediary would suddenly become liable for user behavior. It would simply mean that at least some of the time, online intermediaries would have to show up to court and explain why they aren’t liable, and sometimes they would lose.

A lot of content that people complain about, like misinformation, seems like a First Amendment question rather than a Section 230 question.

The First Amendment is not a fixed rule, and what it protects in 2021 is very different from what it protected in 1996 or 1896 or 1789. It is not, despite many Americans’ passionate belief to the contrary, a clear, consistent, or principled doctrine. It has chiefly served to protect powerful groups’ right to speak freely, even and especially when that speech chills the speech of less powerful groups.

The Section 230 debate is so fraught in part because the public has been trained to believe that everything they do online is speech, and that none of this speech can be regulated. But people use the internet for a vast array of activities, from buying toilet paper to making hotel reservations to watching movies, and it has been used by intermediaries to avoid liability for many things that would not qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment.

That problem could be addressed by replacing the word “information” in Section c(1) with “speech,” making it clear that the law’s protections cannot extend beyond protected speech. That by itself won’t solve all the problems with Section 230, but it would be a way to rein in some of its worst excesses.

Rebecca Tushnet, co-founder of the Organization for Transformative Works

Rebecca Tushnet is a professor at Harvard Law School. She is also a co-founder of the Organization for Transformative Works, a nonprofit that supports fanworks through projects like the Archive Of Our Own (AO3), a Hugo Award-winning archive hosting more than 7 million fanworks.

How is Section 230 important for the Archive Of Our Own?

Section 230 shapes what happens every day — it allows us to moderate with confidence that, if we make one mistake, the hundreds of times we remove content that violates our policies won’t be held against us. 230 is vital in allowing our volunteers who handle abuse complaints to make reasonable decisions without having a lawyer review every ticket they see.

“The question that I have is, what do you want the world to look like?”

Some lawmakers want to require sites to remove illegal content within 24 hours. How would that affect AO3?

That seems both not very troubling and completely unresponsive to the things that everyone is complaining about. There is only one site of any note of which I am aware — Ripoff Report — that refuses on 230 grounds to remove content that a court has found illegal (and even it wiggles on that, I believe). Most sites respond to court orders voluntarily, enough so that there’s a real problem of forged court orders used to remove content.

I think this is a big gap in understanding: even most awful, abusive messages on their own are not illegal. If one person sends a stream of abusive messages, maybe that’s harassment, but if 100 different people send one message, none of them are actually liable for criminal harassment unless we change the criminal law. And there are reasons we might do that, but we definitely haven’t yet.

Are there legal changes that could push Facebook or Google to moderate better, but wouldn’t catch smaller operations like AO3 in the crossfire?

I think we’re increasingly seeing really interesting discussions around using antitrust law. So antitrust remedies don’t necessarily have to include breaking somebody up. They can include saying, “Okay, this is how you have to behave.” I have to say, though, I have some — not a great deal, but some — sympathy for Facebook. Because remember the scale they’re dealing with. So even if they’re right 99.9999 percent of the time, the one time that they screw up is going to be bad.

There’s a counterargument that if a site is designed to scale in a way that makes tragedies inevitable, you should just say it’s sort of “unsafe at any speed.”

The question that I have is, what do you want the world to look like? Because let’s be realistic about this: a site that does not make billions of dollars a year in advertising will not have 100,000 people doing content moderation. If you want a full-time staff moderating all content, then you need to figure out how that will be paid for.

If what you’re saying is, we don’t want this volume of speech online — that is a thing to say, but I think it has real consequences for lots of good stuff, too.

I traded in my MacBook and now I’m a desktop convert

Tesla’s autopilot and full self-driving linked to hundreds of crashes, dozens of deaths, this self-transforming megatron is as badass as it is expensive, blizzcon 2024 has been canceled, dji might get banned next in the us.

More from Policy

The EU’s tough new moderation rules are about to cover a lot more of the internet

Apple unbanned Epic so it can make an iOS games store in the EU

New bill would let defendants inspect algorithms used against them in court

Kids Online Safety Act gains enough supporters to pass the Senate

Click here for our new feature on Presidents & the First Amendment

An examination of all 46 presidents and their engagement with the First Amendment

• ENCYCLOPEDIA
• IN THE CLASSROOM

Home » Articles » Topic » Issues » Issues Related to Speech, Press, Assembly, or Petition » Internet

Written by Ronald Kahn, published on July 30, 2023 , last updated on February 18, 2024

Yi Li uses a computer terminal at the New York Public Library to access the Internet, Wednesday, June 12, 1996. The graduate student from Taiwan supports the federal court decision issued in Philadelphia on Wednesday that bans government censorship of the Internet. Yi Li fears that government control of the Internet could be used by authoritarians to control or confine people. "We can use the (free flow of) information to unite the world," she said. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, reprinted with permission from The Associated Press)

The Supreme Court faces special challenges in dealing with the regulation of speech on the internet. The internet’s unique qualities, such as its ability to spread potentially dangerous information quickly and widely, as well as its easy accessibility by minors, have prompted lawmakers to call for tighter restrictions on internet speech. 

Others argue that Congress and the courts should refrain from limiting the possibilities of the internet unnecessarily and prematurely because it is a technologically evolving medium. For its part, the Supreme Court continues to balance First Amendment precedents with the technological features of the medium.

Congress has attempted to protect minors from pornography on the internet

One major area of internet regulation is  protecting minors  from  pornography and other indecent or obscene speech . For example, Congress passed the  Communications Decency Act (CDA)  in 1996 prohibiting “the knowing transmission of obscene or indecent messages” over the internet to minors. However, in 1997 the Supreme Court in  Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union  struck down this law as being too vague. The court held that the regulation created a  chilling effect  on speech and prohibited more speech than necessary to achieve the objective of protecting children.

The court also rejected the government’s arguments that speech on the internet should receive a reduced level of First Amendment protection, akin to that of the broadcast media which is regulated. Instead, the court ruled that speech on the internet should receive the highest level of First Amendment protection — like that extended to the print media.

In response to the court’s ruling, Congress in 1998 passed the  Child Online Protection Act (COPA) , which dealt only with minors’ access to commercial pornography and provided clear methods to be used by site owners to prevent access by minors. However, in 2004 the court struck down COPA in  Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union , stating that less restrictive methods such as filtering and blocking should be used instead. The court suggested that these alternative methods were at least in theory more effective than those specified in COPA because of the large volume of foreign pornography that Congress cannot regulate.

The Supreme Court has allowed the federal government to require libraries to install filters on their public computers to protect children from obscene material as a condition for receiving  federal aid  to purchase computers. But the three dissenting justices in  United States v. American Library Association  (2003)  viewed the requirement of filtering devices on library computers, which both adults and children must request to be unlocked, to be an overly broad restriction on adult access to protected speech.

Congress has also attempted to criminalize virtual child pornography

Congress also ventured into the area of child pornography, passing the  Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA)  in 1996. The CPPA criminalized virtual child pornography—that is, pornography that sexually depicts, or conveys the impression of depicting, minors. Although the act targeted computer-generated or altered works advertised as child pornography, in  Free Speech Coalition v. Reno  (9th Cir. 1999) the federal appeals court found some language in the statute to be so overly broad and vague that much protected speech would be covered under the CPPA. The court noted that the state’s interest in protecting children from the physical and psychological abuse arising from their participation in the making of pornography—the basis for its ban in  New York v. Ferber  (1982) —was not present in virtual child pornography.

People use computers to access the Internet at the Boston Public Library, in Boston, 2003. The Supreme Court said public libraries must make it harder for internet surfers to look at pornography or they will lose government funding. Justices ruled in United States v. American Library Association (2003) that the federal government can withhold money from libraries that won’t install blocking devices. (AP Photo/Steven Senne, used with permission from the Associated Press.)

‘Hit list’ of abortion doctors on website found to be ‘true threat’

U.S. courts have also dealt with other areas of internet speech that traditionally have been less protected or unprotected under the First Amendment.  Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists  (9th Cir. 2002) , decided by an en banc panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, centered on what constitutes dangerous speech and a true threat in the context of the internet.

The American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA) posted the personal contact information of doctors who performed abortions, including details such as the names of their children. The names of doctors who had been murdered were crossed off and the names of those who had been wounded by anti-abortion activists were grayed. Although the site did not contain explicit threats, opponents argued that it was akin to a hit list, and the doctors on the list believed it to be a serious threat to their safety.

The appeals court held that the ACLA could be held liable for civil damages, and that the website did not contain political speech protected under the First Amendment. The court wrote: “It is the use of the ‘wanted’-type format in the context of the poster pattern—poster followed by murder—that constitutes the threat.” The posters were not “political hyperbole” because “[p]hysicians could well believe that ACLA would make good on the threat.” Thus it was a  true threat , not protected as political speech.

In an earlier case in 1997, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached a different decision on violent material posted on the web and sent in emails by a university student, appearing to plan an attack on a woman at his college. Abraham Alkhabaz claimed the emails were mere fantasy. In  United States v. Alkhabaz,  and circuit court agreed, concluding that the messages did not constitute a true threat because they were not “conveyed to effect some change or achieve some goal through intimidation.”

Rights of anonymous speech not absolute on internet

The extent of the right to anonymous speech on the internet has also become an issue in some court cases. The Supreme Court has recognized  anonymity rights in speech , albeit not an absolute right, and lower courts have generally taken the same view when it comes to anonymous speech on the internet.

In “ The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online ,”   author Jeff Kosseff explores two cases,  Dentrite International, Inc. v. Doe  No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. App. Div. 2001) and  Cahill v. Doe , 879 A.2d 943 (Del. Super. Ct., June 14, 2005), in which courts recognized relatively strong First Amendment presumptions on behalf of purveyors of anonymous speech, especially for those that are statements of opinions rather than obvious falsehoods, while recognizing that government sometimes has the right to identify such speakers when they have used their platforms to harass, engage in slander or sexual predation, make true threats, or allow foreign governments to influence U.S. elections.

This article was originally published in 2009 and was updated in March 2022.

Send Feedback on this article

How To Contribute

The Free Speech Center operates with your generosity! Please  donate now!

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Internet freedom on the decline in US and globally, study finds

The study cited a lack of regulation in the domestic tech industry, and the rise of authoritarian agencies abroad

Online freedom is continuing to decline globally, according to a new study, with governments increasingly cracking down on user speech and misinformation on the rise.

The report from Freedom House , a Washington DC-based democracy advocacy group, found internet freedom declined for the fifth year in a row in the US and the 11th year internationally – for two distinct reasons.

Domestically, the lack of regulation in the tech industry has allowed companies to grow beyond reproach and misinformation to flourish online. Abroad, authoritarian governments have harnessed their tight control of the internet to subdue free expression .

Freedom House cited a growing lack of diversity among sources of online information in the US that allowed conspiracies and misinformation to rise, an issue that was gravely underscored during the 2020 elections and the 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol.

“The spread of false and conspiracist content about the November 2020 elections shook the foundations of the American political system,” the report said.

The yearly study, which has been published since 1973, uses a standard index to measure internet freedom by country on a 100-point scale. It asks questions about internet infrastructure, government control and obstacles to access, and content regulation. Countries are scored on a scale of 100 points with higher numbers considered more “free”.

The report called measures taken by Joe Biden since his election “promising” for internet freedom, citing the reversal of a Trump administration order to halt transactions between US individuals and Chinese social media companies as beneficial.

Meanwhile, global internet freedom declined for the 11th consecutive year, with more governments arresting users for nonviolent political, social, or religious speech than ever before. Officials in at least 20 countries suspended internet access, and 20 regimes blocked access to social media platforms, the report said.

The biggest declines were seen in Myanmar, Belarus, and Uganda. In Uganda, internet freedom fell by seven points after pro-government social media accounts flooded the online environment with manipulated information preceding the January 2021 elections. In August 2020 in Belarus, government forces cracked down on election unrest by restricting access to the internet and surveilling activists online.

The report called the Chinese government “the world’s worst abuser of internet freedom”, citing new legislation criminalizing certain expressions online and draconian prison terms issued to activists for online dissent - including an 18-year sentence against one activist for distributing a paper criticizing the government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.

This year, officials in India pressured Twitter to remove protest-related and critical commentary and to stop flagging manipulated content shared by the ruling party.

The report further showed governments are clashing with technology companies on users’ rights, with authorities in at least 42 countries pursuing new rules for platforms on content, data, and competition over the past year.

Specifically, in India, officials pressured Twitter to remove posts critical of the ruling party. Authorities in Nigeria blocked access to Twitter after the platform removed incendiary posts by the country’s president. President Recep Erdoğan of Turkey repeatedly accused tech companies of “digital fascism” for their refusal to comply with provisions in the country’s new social media law.

Despite these issues, the report said legislation to address abuses of tech companies has been limited. It found that while 48 countries have pursued regulatory actions in the past year, little of that legislation has the potential to make meaningful change.

“In the high stakes battles between governments and tech companies, human rights are the main casualties,” said Allie Funk, senior research analyst who co-wrote the report, in a news briefing on Monday.

Most viewed

What does freedom of speech mean in the internet era?

More than two-thirds of the world is using the internet, a lot. Image:  REUTERS/Fred Prouser

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} John Letzing

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Media, Entertainment and Sport is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, media, entertainment and sport.

• The US Supreme Court is weighing in on whether social media sites can be compelled to include all viewpoints no matter how objectionable.
• The high court’s decision could have a broad impact on how the internet is experienced.
• Its deliberations raise questions about regulation, freedom of speech and what makes for a healthy and equitable online existence.

In 1996, a man in South Africa locked himself into a glass cubicle and mostly limited his contact with the outside world to an internet connection for a few months . “The exciting aspect is realizing just how similar we all are in this growing global village,” he gushed to a reporter on the verge of his release.

What was an oddball stunt 28 years ago now verges on a rough description of daily existence. When Richard Weideman locked himself into that cubicle to stare at a screen all day, only about 1% of the global population was online, and social media was mostly limited to the 5,000 or so members of the WELL, an early virtual community. Now, more than two-thirds of the world is using the internet, a lot – and the global village is not in great shape .

The US Supreme Court is currently attempting to sort out exactly how internet discourse should be experienced. Are YouTube, Facebook and TikTok places where top-down decisions should continue to be made on what to publish and what to exclude? Or, are they more akin to a postal service that’s obliged to convey all views, no matter how unseemly?

By weighing in on two state laws mandating that kind of forced inclusion, the high court could end up ensuring free expression by erasing editorial guardrails – and the average scroll through social media might never be quite the same. A decision is expected by June .

This potential inflection point comes as just about everyone and their grandparents are now very online. Not participating doesn’t seem like an option anymore. “The modern public square” is one way to describe it. Oral arguments before the Supreme Court have surfaced other analogies , like a book shop, or a parade.

Excluding people from marching in your parade might seem unfair. But, it's your parade.

More than a century ago, a Supreme Court justice made his own analogy : speech that doesn’t merit protection is the type that creates a clear and present danger, like falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.

“Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater” has since become a shopworn way to describe anything deemed to cross the free-speech line.

As it turns out, falsely shouting “fire” in crowded places had actually been a real thing that people did in the years before it showed up in a Supreme Court opinion. In 1911, at an opera house in the state of Pennsylvania, it resulted in dozens of people people being fatally crushed; another incident two years later in Michigan killed far more.

More recently, social media services banned certain political messaging because they believed it had also fatally incited people under false pretenses.

Those bans prompted reactive laws in Florida and Texas, triggering the current Supreme Court proceeding. The Texas legislation prohibits social media companies with big audiences from barring users over their viewpoints. The broader Florida law also forbids such deplatforming, and zeroes in on the practice of shadow banning .

That particular form of surreptitious censoring isn’t confined to the US, even if many popular social media services are headquartered there. The EU’s Digital Services Act, approved in 2022, is meant to prohibit shadow banning. In India, users trying to broach touchy subjects online have alleged that it’s happened. And in Mexico, some critics have actually advocated for more shadow banning of criminal cartels.

‘A euphemism for censorship’

In 1969, computer scientists in California established the first network connection via the precursor to the modern internet. They managed to send the initial two letters of a five-letter message from a refrigerator-sized machine at the University of California, Los Angeles, before the system crashed. Things progressed quickly from there.

In 2006, Google blew a lot of minds by paying nearly $1.7 billion for YouTube – an astounding price for something widely considered a repository for pirated content and cat videos.

By 2019, YouTube was earning a bit more than $15 billion in ad revenue annually, and had a monthly global audience of 2 billion users. It’s now at the crux of a debate with far-reaching implications; if the Florida and Texas laws are upheld by the Supreme Court, the site would likely have a much harder time barring hateful content, if it could at all.

That might be just fine for some people. One Supreme Court justice wondered during oral arguments whether the content moderation currently employed by YouTube and others is just “a euphemism for censorship.”

In some ways, we’ve already had at least a partial test run of unleashing a broader range of views on a social media channel. When it was still called Twitter, the site banned political ads due to concerns about spreading misinformation, and even banned a former US president. Now, as “X,” it’s reinstated both .

According to one recent analysis , X’s political center of gravity shifted notably after coming under new ownership in late 2022, mostly by design . The response has been mixed; sharp declines in downloads of the app and usage have been reported.

Government intervention to force that kind of recalibration, or to mandate any kind of content moderation decisions, would likely be unpopular. X, for example, has challenged a law passed in California in 2022 requiring social media companies to self-report the moderation decisions they’re making. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has called that law an informal censorship scheme .

Pundits seem skeptical that the Supreme Court will let the state laws requiring blanket viewpoint inclusion stand. During oral arguments, the court’s chief justice asked whether the government should really be forcing a "modern public square" run by private companies to publish anything. An attorney suggested the result might be so disruptive that, at least until they can figure out how to best proceed, some sites might consider narrowing their focus to “nothing but content about puppies.”

Workarounds are already available to some people who feel overlooked online. Starting an entirely new social media site of their own, for example . Or, if they happen to be among the richest people in the world, maybe buying one that’s already gained a huge audience.

Neither option is very realistic for most of us. And there may be a legitimate case to be made that ubiquitous platforms do sometimes unfairly marginalize certain voices.

(It's also possible that “content about puppies” would be preferable to what’s often available now).

Ultimately, no sweeping legal remedy may be at hand. Instead, we'll likely remain in an uneasy middle ground that only becomes more bewildering as artificial intelligence spreads – mostly relying on algorithm-induced familiarity , maybe wondering if it’s social-media ineptitude or shadow banning that’s keeping us from getting the attention we deserve, and not infrequently stepping out of our online comfort zone to steal a glimpse of something jarring.

More reading on freedom of expression online

For more context, here are links to further reading from the World Economic Forum's Strategic Intelligence platform :

• “The US Supreme Court Holds the Future of the Internet in its Hands.” The headline says it all. ( Wired )
• This pole dancer won an apology from Instagram for blocking hashtags she and her peers had been using “in error,” then proceeded to publish an academic study on shadow banning. ( The Conversation )
• “Social media paints an alarmingly detailed picture.” Sometimes people don’t want to be seen and heard online, particularly if asked for their social media identifiers when applying for a visa, according to this piece. ( EFF )
• “From Hashtags to Hush-Tags.” The removal of victims’ online content in conflict zones plays in favor of regimes committing atrocities, according to this analysis. ( The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy )
• Have you heard the conspiracy theory about a “deep state” plot involving a pop megastar dating a professional American football player? According to an expert cited in this piece, it’s just more evidence of our current era of “evidence maximalism.” ( The Atlantic )
• Everyone seems pretty certain that internet discourse has negatively affected behavior, politics, and society – but according to this piece, truly rigorous studies of these effects (and responsible media coverage of those studies) are rarer than you might think. ( LSE )
• One thing social media services don’t appear to have issues with publishing: recruitment campaigns for intelligence agencies, according to this piece. ( RUSI )

On the Strategic Intelligence platform, you can find feeds of expert analysis related to Media , Law , Digital Communications , and hundreds of additional topics. You’ll need to register to view.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

The Agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Industries in Depth .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Confused about AI? Here are the podcasts you need on artificial intelligence

Robin Pomeroy

April 25, 2024

Which technologies will enable a cleaner steel industry?

Daniel Boero Vargas and Mandy Chan

Industry government collaboration on agritech can empower global agriculture

Abhay Pareek and Drishti Kumar

April 23, 2024

Nearly 15% of the seafood we produce each year is wasted. Here’s what needs to happen

Charlotte Edmond

April 11, 2024

How Paris 2024 aims to become the first-ever gender-equal Olympics

Victoria Masterson

April 5, 2024

5 ways CRISPR gene editing is shaping the future of food and health

Douglas Broom

April 3, 2024

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Net neutrality is back: U.S. promises fast, safe and reliable internet for all

Emma Bowman

The Federal Communications Commission has restored net neutrality rules that ban content providers from restricting bandwidth to customers. Michael Bocchieri/Getty Images hide caption

The Federal Communications Commission has restored net neutrality rules that ban content providers from restricting bandwidth to customers.

Consumers can look forward to faster, safer and more reliable internet connections under the promises of newly reinstated government regulations.

The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 on Thursday to reclassify broadband as a public utility, such as water and electricity — to regulate access to the internet. The move to expand government oversight of internet service providers comes after the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the magnitude of the digital divide , forcing consumers to rely on high-speed internet for school and work, as well as social and health support.

The Indicator from Planet Money

What happened to the internet without net neutrality.

Because the government deems internet access an essential service, the FCC is promising oversight as if broadband were a public utility. In doing so, the government aims to make providers more accountable for outages, require more robust network security, protect fast speeds, and require greater protections for consumer data.

The decision effectively restores so-called net neutrality rules that were first introduced during the Obama administration in 2015 and repealed two years later under President Trump.

The rules are sure to invite legal challenges from the telecoms industry — not for the first time. And a future administration could always undo the rules.

Meanwhile, net neutrality regulations are set to go into effect 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register.

But much has yet to be clarified about the rules: The 400-page draft order to restore the regulations has not been publicly released.

Here's what we do know.

What's net neutrality?

Net neutrality is a wonky term for the idea that the flow of information on the internet should be treated equally and that internet service providers can't interfere with what consumers do online.

Also referred to as an "open internet," net neutrality aims to level the digital marketplace, prohibiting internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast and AT&T from running fast lanes and slow lanes — speeding up or slowing down internet speeds — for online services like Netflix and Spotify.

What's this latest battle about?

Without the net neutrality regulations in place, phone and internet companies have the power to block or favor some content over others. The issue has pit telecom companies against Big Tech. Net neutrality advocates — tech companies, consumer watchdogs and free speech activists among them — warn that without such regulations, broadband providers are incentivized to charge customers more to use internet fast lanes or else risk being stuck with slower speeds.

In recent years, the issue has largely become a partisan one. In 2015, the President Obama-appointed FCC chair ushered in the approval of net neutrality rules . Those rules were repealed two years later under President Trump after his pick to run the FCC called them "heavy-handed" in his pledge to end them.

Now, the return of FCC regulations has reinvigorated the net neutrality debate.

"Every consumer deserves internet access that is fast, open and fair," FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel said ahead of Thursday's vote. "This is common sense."

As in 2015, the rules classify broadband as a utility service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

The measure passed along party lines, with Democratic commissioners in favor of net neutrality and Republicans opposed.

What critics are saying

Opponents say the net neutrality rules are government overreach and interfere with commerce. In a letter to FCC chair Rosenworcel this week, a group of Republican lawmakers said the draft order to restore net neutrality regulations would chill innovation and investment in the broadband industry.

Dissenting FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, a Republican, said that fears of a sluggish or pricey internet without the rules were overblown — that consumers benefited from faster speeds and lower prices since the repeal. Net neutrality advocates dispute the argument that broadband rates dropped when net neutrality went away, saying the numbers are misleading .

"There will be lots of talk about 'net neutrality' and virtually none about the core issue before the agency: namely, whether the FCC should claim for itself the freewheeling power to micromanage nearly every aspect of how the Internet functions — from the services that consumers can access to the prices that can be charged," Carr said in October, when the Biden administration proposed restoring net neutrality.

Some telecom companies argue that the FCC is trying to solve a nonexistent problem in its stated aim to preserve equal internet access for consumers.

"This is a nonissue for broadband consumers, who have enjoyed an open internet for decades," said Jonathan Spalter, the CEO of USTelecom, a trade group that represents ISPs such as AT&T and Verizon, in a statement following the vote to hand regulatory authority back to the FCC.

"We plan to pursue all available options, including in the courts," the group said.

What's happened when net neutrality went away?

What ended up happening in the years after the rollback went into effect in 2018 was so discreet that most people unlikely noticed its effects, says Stanford Law professor Barbara van Schewick, who directs the school's Center for Internet and Society and supports net neutrality.

For the past six years, she says, "a lot of public scrutiny on the ISPs and then the attempts to bring back net neutrality in Congress basically kept the ISPs on their best behavior."

Still, there were changes. Some ISPs implemented zero-rating plans, the practice of excluding some apps from data charges, she notes, or were caught throttling — intentionally slowing down consumer internet speeds.

Absent heightened federal regulation, tough net neutrality rules that sprang up in several states, including California , Washington and Oregon, also have continued to keep internet service providers in check.

"It's still being litigated," van Schewick says. "And so, it is fair to say we haven't seen a world without net neutrality."

Elon Musk vs Australia: global content take-down orders can harm the internet if adopted widely

Professor specialising in Internet law, Bond University

Disclosure statement

Dan Jerker B. Svantesson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Bond University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Do Australian courts have the right to decide what foreign citizens, located overseas, view online on a foreign-owned platform?

Anyone inclined to answer “yes” to this question should perhaps also ask themselves whether they are equally happy for courts in China, Russia and Iran to determine what Australians can see and post online in Australia.

This is the problem with global “take-down orders”, an issue we now must confront in light of the Australian eSafety commissioner demanding that social media platform X (formerly Twitter) remove videos of a violent stabbing at a church in Sydney.

X agreed to prevent access to the content in Australia. However, at an urgent federal court hearing late Monday , the commissioner demanded a full removal, with an interim measure of blocking the posts globally.

Read more: Elon Musk is mad he's been ordered to remove Sydney church stabbing videos from X. He'd be more furious if he saw our other laws

Do global take-down orders work?

There can be no doubt that a global take-down order can be justified in some instances. For example, child abuse materials and so-called revenge porn are clear examples of content that should be removed with global effect.

But it is far too simplistic to seek to justify a global take-down order just by saying that any platform operating in Australia must comply with Australian law , as shadow Foreign Minister Simon Birmingham said in a Sky News interview this morning.

After all, international law imposes limitations on what demands Australian law can place on foreigners acting outside Australia.

It is also too simplistic to just focus on efficiency, as was done in the context of so-called geo-blocking – the use of geo-location technologies to block users from a specific location. Attempts to block online piracy sites, for example, have famously been ineffective .

Of course, a court order requiring X to take down certain content globally is more effective than a court order requiring X to geo-block such content so that users in Australia cannot access it.

But that efficiency argument applies equally to Iran’s draconian blasphemy laws or the Chinese laws that make it an offence to compare Chinese leader Xi Jinping to Winnie the Pooh .

Even if X removed the content on a global basis, those Australians who are hell-bent on viewing the footage in question would be able to find it somewhere else online. In other words, there is no realistic way to fully ensure the content cannot be accessed at all.

Ordering X to use geo-location technologies to block Australians from viewing the content would be sufficient to prevent the general Australian public from coming into contact with the video. Doing so would also show respect for the fact that different countries have different laws.

An unusually poor ‘test case’ for free speech

Elon Musk, the American billionaire owner of X, has chosen to approach the matter as a fight for free speech in the face of “censorship”. Such a move would no doubt gain support among the conspiracy theorists and online trolls in his audience. But for the broader Australian public, this must appear like an odd occasion to fight for free speech.

There can sometimes be real tension between free speech and the suppression of violent imagery. For example, some news reporting from military conflicts may be deemed too graphic by some, while others view it as a necessary tool to illustrate the level of violence being committed.

Here, there are no such complex considerations. There is simply no arguable value in keeping the videos online. Consequently, while removing the content can be described as censorship, it is hard to understand why anyone would object to this censorship.

After all, not even the staunchest free speech advocates would be able to credibly object to all censorship. (For example, consider the publication of child abuse materials or Musk’s credit card details.)

The path forward

In the end, we must recognise the internet is a shared resource. All countries, including Australia, should be very careful in how they apply their laws where it can have a “spill-over” effect impacting people in other countries.

Global take-down orders are justifiable in some situations, but cannot be the default position for all content that violates some law somewhere in the world. If we had to comply with all content laws worldwide, the internet would no longer be as valuable as it is today.

We must also start being more proactive in how we regulate the internet. Rushed reactive lawmaking rarely leads to good long-term outcomes. This is a field in which we need international cooperation – this will take time.

Finally, the platforms must act maturely. While other platforms responded to the eSafety commissioner by swiftly blocking the content, X decided to fight for the “right” to display violent extremism in action.

The fact Musk views this as a suitable battleground for free speech shows that we have a long way to go in finding solutions to the regulation of the internet.

Read more: Regulating content won't make the internet safer - we have to change the business models

• Social media
• International law
• Freedom of speech
• Freedom of expression
• online content
• Social media content
• X (formerly Twitter)

Program Manager, Teaching & Learning Initiatives

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

Click Here to signup

Professional services, technologies, solutions and products.

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 25.4.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Smartphone-Based Speech Therapy for Poststroke Dysarthria: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating Efficacy and Feasibility

Authors of this article:

There are no citations yet available for this article according to Crossref .

Advertisement

Supported by

Congress Passed a Bill That Could Ban TikTok. Now Comes the Hard Part.

President Biden has signed the bill to force a sale of the video app or ban it. Now the law faces court challenges, a shortage of qualified buyers and Beijing’s hostility.

• Share full article

By Sapna Maheshwari and David McCabe

Sapna Maheshwari reported from New York, and David McCabe from Washington.

A bill that would force a sale of TikTok by its Chinese owner, ByteDance — or ban it outright — was passed by the Senate on Tuesday and signed into law Wednesday by President Biden.

Now the process is likely to get even more complicated.

Congress passed the measure citing national security concerns because of TikTok’s Chinese ties. Both lawmakers and security experts have said there are risks that the Chinese government could lean on ByteDance for access to sensitive data belonging to its 170 million U.S. users or to spread propaganda.

The law would allow TikTok to continue to operate in the United States if ByteDance sold it within 270 days, or about nine months, a time frame that the president could extend to a year.

The measure is likely to face legal challenges, as well as possible resistance from Beijing, which could block the sale or export of the technology. It’s also unclear who has the resources to buy TikTok, since it will carry a hefty price tag.

The issue could take months or even years to settle, during which the app would probably continue to function for U.S. consumers.

“It’s going to be a royal mess,” said Anupam Chander, a visiting scholar at the Institute for Rebooting Social Media at Harvard and an expert on the global regulation of new technologies.

TikTok pledged to challenge the law. “Rest assured, we aren’t going anywhere,” its chief executive, Shou Chew, said in a video posted to the platform. “We are confident, and we will keep fighting for your rights in the courts.”

Here’s what to expect next.

TikTok’s Day in Court

TikTok is likely to start by challenging the measure in the courts.

“I think that’s the one certainty: There will be litigation,” said Jeff Kosseff, an associate professor of cybersecurity law at the Naval Academy.

TikTok’s case will probably lean on the First Amendment, legal experts said. The company is expected to argue that a forced sale could violate its users’ free speech rights because a new owner could change the app’s content policies and reshape what users are able to freely share on the platform.

“Thankfully, we have a Constitution in this country, and people’s First Amendment rights are very important,” Michael Beckerman, TikTok’s vice president of public policy, said in an interview with a creator on the platform last week. “We’ll continue to fight for you and all the other users on TikTok.”

Other groups, like the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been a vocal opponent of the bill, may also join the legal fight. A spokeswoman for the A.C.L.U. said on Tuesday that the group was still weighing its role in potential litigation challenging the law.

The government will probably need to make a strong case that ByteDance’s ownership of TikTok makes it necessary to limit speech because of national security concerns, the legal experts said.

TikTok already has a strong record in similar First Amendment battles. When he was president, Donald J. Trump tried to force a sale or ban of the app in 2020, but federal judges blocked the effort because it would have had the effect of shutting down a “platform for expressive activity.” Montana tried to ban TikTok in the state last year because of the app’s Chinese ownership, but a different federal judge ruled against the state law for similar reasons.

Only one narrower TikTok restriction has survived a court challenge. The governor of Texas announced a ban of the app on state government devices and networks in 2022 because of its Chinese ownership and related data privacy concerns. Professors at public universities challenged the ban in court last year, saying it blocked them from doing research on the app. A federal judge upheld the state ban in December, finding it was a “reasonable restriction” in light of Texas’ concerns and the narrow scope affecting only state employees.

Small Buyer Pool

Analysts estimate that the price for the U.S. portion of TikTok could be tens of billions of dollars.

ByteDance itself is one of the world’s most valuable start-ups , with an estimated worth of $225 billion, according to CB Insights, a firm that tracks venture capital and start-ups.

The steep price tag would limit the list of who could afford TikTok. Tech giants like Meta or Google would probably be blocked from an acquisition because of antitrust concerns.

Private equity firms or other investors could form a group to raise enough money to buy TikTok. Former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in March that he wanted to build such a group. And anyone who can pony up the money still has to pass muster with the U.S. government, which needs to sign off on any purchase.

Few others have expressed public interest in buying the app.

The last time the government tried to force ByteDance to sell TikTok in 2020, the company held talks with Microsoft and the software company Oracle. (Oracle and Walmart ultimately appeared to reach an agreement with ByteDance, but the deal never materialized .)

A Complicated Divestment

Even if TikTok approaches a sale, the process of separating TikTok from ByteDance is likely to be messy.

The legislation prohibits any connection between ByteDance and TikTok after a sale. Yet TikTok employees use ByteDance software in their communications, and the company’s employees are global, with executives in Singapore, Dublin, Los Angeles and Mountain View, Calif.

It’s unclear if ByteDance would consider selling TikTok’s entire global footprint or just its U.S. operations, where the company has nearly 7,000 employees.

Breaking off just the U.S. portion of TikTok could prove particularly challenging. The app's recommendation algorithm, which figures out what users like and serves up content, is key to the success of the app. But Chinese engineers work on that algorithm, which ByteDance owns.

During Mr. Trump’s attempt to force a sale in 2020, the Chinese government issued export restrictions that appeared to require its regulators to grant permission before ByteDance algorithms could be sold or licensed to outsiders.

The uncertainty around the export of the algorithm and other ByteDance technology could also deter interested buyers.

China’s Unpredictable Role

The Chinese government could also try to block a TikTok sale.

Chinese officials criticized a similar bill after the House passed it in March, although they have not yet said whether they would block a divestment. About a year ago, China’s commerce ministry said it would “firmly oppose” a sale of the app by ByteDance.

Chinese export regulations appear to cover TikTok’s content recommendation algorithm, giving Beijing a say in whether ByteDance could sell or license the app’s most valuable feature.

It “is not a foregone conclusion by any means” that China will allow a sale, said Lindsay Gorman, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund who specializes in emerging tech and China.

China may retaliate against American companies. On Friday, China’s Cyberspace Administration asked Apple to remove Meta’s WhatsApp and Threads from its App Store, according to the iPhone manufacturer. The Chinese government cited national security reasons in making the demand.

Sapna Maheshwari reports on TikTok, technology and emerging media companies. She has been a business reporter for more than a decade. Contact her at [email protected] . More about Sapna Maheshwari

David McCabe covers tech policy. He joined The Times from Axios in 2019. More about David McCabe

Table of Contents

German police forbid ‘speaking irish’ at berlin protest — free speech dispatch april 2024.

• Sarah McLaughlin

Last month, FIRE launched the  Free Speech Dispatch , a regular series covering new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. The previous entry addressed global takedowns out of India, repression in Hong Kong, and worrying legislation in Canada. And this week, we’ll look at a series of troubling censorship allegations across Europe, extensive online restrictions in China, and Iran’s campaign against its critics.

Protesters in Germany better watch their tongues (literally) 

To put it mildly, Germany has not handled protests about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict well in recent months, and regular accusations of censorship have emerged from across the country. More allegations surfaced this month when Berlin police  shut down — and cut off power to — a Palestine Congress conference over “the potential for hate speech.” 

Authorities specifically cited the risks of a speech broadcast by video from Palestinian author Salman Abu Sitta, who police  said has “in the past made antisemitic and violence-glorifying remarks” and is “forbidden from being politically active in Germany.” One of the event’s co-organizers, Jewish Voice for a Just Peace in the Middle East, alleges police detained two of its members, one for holding a “Jews against genocide” sign outside.

And last Friday, Berlin police again shut down a pro-Palestinian protest, this time for a less expected reason: Demonstrators were speaking an unpermitted language. According to the  Irish Independent , police dispersed the event of “about 40 Irish people living in the German capital, under rules that only allow English and German, and in some cases Arabic, to be used during protests.” One protester, who accused police of also cracking down on protests in Arabic, said police were “worried that we, in Irish, would say something that glorified terrorism or incited violence” and, because they did not provide an interpreter, “were banned from speaking in Irish.”

Belgian mayor tries to shut down National Conservatism Conference 

Emir Kir, mayor of Brussels’ Saint-Josse-ten-Noode neighborhood, attempted — ultimately unsuccessfully — to close down the National Conservatism Conference last week,  citing the need to “guarantee public safety.” Speakers at the event included Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a close ally of Vladimir Putin, and U.K. politician Nigel Farage, a prominent supporter of the Brexit movement. 

Police  arrived during Farage’s April 16 speech and announced that “authorities have decided to shut down the event.” Organizers of the conference encountered trouble even before it began when at least one hotel refused to host it after being  pressured by another mayor in Brussels. 

But these efforts failed, with Belgium’s supreme administrative court  issuing an order the following day affirming the right to free expression and suggesting efforts to censor it for perceived safety concerns “derived purely from the reactions that its organisation might provoke among opponents.” 

This reliance on nebulous “safety” claims and potential threats of violence is a common pretext for censorship, even in the United States. Last week, University of Southern California leadership  offered similar justification for its cancellation of class valedictorian Asna Tabassum’s commencement speech following online criticism of comments she had made about Israel. Such a result permits the  heckler’s veto to determine who can and cannot speak — or it allows authorities to use potential heckling or violence as a pretext for disallowing speakers. 

Correctional labor sentence for Belarusian dissidents

Earlier this month, Belarusian authorities  convicted Alyaksandr Ilyin, Siarhei Kulsha and Dzmitry Khalyaukin, members of rock band Nizkiz, of “organizing and plotting actions grossly violating public order” and sentenced them to two years of correctional labor. These charges are the latest in President Alexander Lukashenko’s years-long  crackdown on anti-government protests in the country.

Nizkiz, whose music is also now banned due to its inclusion on the country’s list of registered extremists, became a figure in Belarus’ demonstrations with its 2020  protest song “Rules” and later filmed a music video for the song at a protest.

Messaging apps disappear from Apple’s app store in China

China is known for its extensive internet restrictions and, as of this month, more apps joined the censored list. Amid the backdrop of American legislators’  efforts to force TikTok to divest from Chinese company ByteDance or face a ban in the U.S., Chinese government officials ordered Apple to remove Meta’s WhatsApp and Threads from its app store in China. Apple complied, stating the company was “obligated to follow the laws in the countries where we operate, even when we disagree.” Apple tends to  comply with orders from the Chinese government without challenge, and the company’s alleged unwillingness to allow Jon Stewart to critically discuss the country in his Apple TV+ show reportedly  contributed to the show’s early end. 

The government’s orders to Apple  followed officials’ discovery of unspecified content about Xi Jinping on the apps “that was inflammatory and violated the country’s cybersecurity laws.” Signal and Telegram were also  removed from the app store due to national security concerns. These moves will further limit Chinese citizens’ already heavily restrained access to information and communication tools.

Iranian censorship at home — and in the UK?

On April 13, Iranian cartoonist, activist, and frequent censorship target Atena Farghadani was  arrested on charges of “blasphemy,” “disturbing public order,” and creating “propaganda against the Islamic Republic.” She had reportedly  displayed her artwork publicly in Tehran, leading to her arrest, and has since rejected bail in protest. 

But it isn’t only dissenters within the country that are at risk. Late last month, London-based Iran International journalist and government critic Pouria Zeraati was stabbed outside his home by a group of men who fled the country immediately after the attack. Zeraati survived and is now living in a safe house, but  investigators do not believe the act of violence was random. Instead, the case is being handled by the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command. 

Zeraati  joins a group of over a dozen U.K.-based individuals who have faced recent violence or threats likely linked to the Iranian government. Iran International spokesperson Adam Baillie said the organization is on “high alert” and views the stabbing as “a very clear warning.” This is one of today’s worst free speech challenges — authoritarian governments that operate with impunity not just within their own borders, but on a global scale.

Stay tuned for more updates from the Free Speech Dispatch.

• Free Speech Abroad

Recent Articles

FIRE’s award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

Texas tramples First Amendment rights with police crackdown of pro-Palestinian protests

Here’s what students need to know about protesting on campus right now

Kansas takes a stand for intellectual freedom

FIRE joins animal advocates, free speech groups urging Ninth Circuit to affirm ruling that allows undercover audio recording

Related articles, alarming new legislation in canada, worsening repression in hong kong, and online global takedowns emerging from india — free speech dispatch march 2024, why is an indian court order determining what you can read on the internet, video: why this dissident law student says the chinese communist party’s fear gives him hope., we should be protecting the right to religious freedom, un human rights council gets it wrong: prosecuting blasphemy won’t stop religious discord, but it will silence dissent, speech abroad starts at home: how america can promote free expression globally.

• Share this selection on Twitter
• Share this selection via email

FBI says Chinese hackers preparing to attack US infrastructure

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Reporting by Christopher Bing; Editing by Richard Chang

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Award-winning reporter covering the intersection between technology and national security with a focus on how the evolving cybersecurity landscape affects government and business.

Technology Chevron

U.S. chip bans not meant to hobble China's growth, Blinken says

U.S. export controls on sending advanced computing chips to China are not meant to hold back China's economy or technological development, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said during an interview with National Public Radio on Friday.

Internet accuses Joe Biden of 'playing the victim again' after remarks to families of slain Syracuse officers spark backlash

S YRACUSE, NEW YORK: President Joe Biden has become the subject of scrutiny again on social media as he recently made a visit to Syracuse to meet the families of slain police officers and offer his condolences to them.

However, Biden's speech invited ridicule as trolls accused him of playing the victim again.

This incident follows the trade union conference in Washington, DC that became a nightmare for Biden as during his address, the 81-year-old POTUS mistakenly read off the 'pause' instructions as well along with his speech from the teleprompter, which resulted in social media bombarding him with insults and labeling him a 'joke'.

Joe Biden honors slain officers in speech

According to the Colorado Springs Gazette , Biden started his speech in Syracuse, New York, by paying tribute to two police officers who tragically lost their lives while on duty last week. He expressed his desire to meet with their families soon.

Biden's speech was part of an event celebrating the allocation of over $6 billion in grants to semiconductor producer Micron Technologies through the CHIPS and Science Act.

Despite calls from local officials and the police union to postpone his visit following Onondaga County Lt Sheriff's Deputy Michael Hoosock and Syracuse police officer Michael Jensen's deaths, the President went ahead with his plans to visit the city, as per the Gazette.

According to the Gazette, Biden recognized the bravery of the fallen officers in his speech, saying, "I want to take a moment to honor two officers who were mentioned, two fallen heroes who were killed in the line of duty this month. We pray for their loved ones, whose hearts have been broken."

His latter remarks stirred discussion on social media, particularly when he reflected, "You know, every time a police officer puts on that shield, every morning, their husband or wife, whatever it is, your child, worries about when they get that phone call. I got one of those phone calls."

Biden continued, emphasizing solidarity with law enforcement, saying, "You've lost a part of your soul. The entire Syracuse community is grieving, and we're grieving with you. To the men and women in law enforcement, here and across the country, you represent the best of us."

Following the event, Biden met with the families of Hoosock and Jensen to offer his condolences, according to a source familiar with the matter, as cited by the Gazette.

Internet labels Joe Biden 'self-centered'

A user wrote, "Now he gonna say he used to be a cop."

Another said, "So now lying Joe is saying Bo Biden was killed on the job while on a 🚨 police call 🙄? What a slap in the face to the windows, children, and families of real victims! Sickening!"

A user commented, "Playing the victim again 😒."

Another said, "Is there anything that this guy hasn't done, received, or been apart of? I swear he's a modern day hero for living through all this...bullsh!t. Yep, that's exactly it, it's bullsh!t."

A user commented, "Joe Biden is the most self-centered man in the universe. It's always about him."

Another said, "What else is new, he always takes the attention away from the people he's supposed to be talking about and makes everything about himself. It's disgusting."

Someone else stated, "Does this man have one cell of decency?? He has made this country completely unsafe for ALLLLLLL Americans in every way…BUT ESPECIALLY POLICE OFFICERS & he stands there and pretends to care about them…It's absolutely disgusting & shows he has no shame!"

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.

Compare Providers

• Review Providers

Internet Speed Test

Test Your Download and Upload Speeds

There was an error initializing the test. Please reload the page and try again.

Download Speed

Upload Speed

Latency (ping)

Get our speed test app.

103.42.228.39

Server location

Your Test History

Our free speed test app will keep track of your test history plus troubleshoot your internet speed issues. Download it now to get started!

Want to know how your internet measures up? Compare your speeds to see how your connection stands up against millions of other test results.

All Speed Tests

Average Speed for -

Run a speed test to see how your speeds compare to the average speed of other - customers.

Your download speed ( ) is faster slower than the average speed of other - customers.

Average Speed in -

Run a speed test to see how your speeds compare to the average speed of users in - .

Your download speed ( ) is faster slower than the average speed in - .

Disappointed with your results? See our FAQs section for tips on how to improve your speeds. You can also enter your zip code below to compare internet providers in your area—it may be time to upgrade.

You need at least 25 Mbps download speeds and 3 Mbps upload speeds to effectively stream, game, download, and Zoom online with minimal slowdowns and buffering. But if you live with three or more people, you’ll be better off with 100 Mbps download speeds and 10 Mbps upload speeds to support more users and bandwidth-heavy tasks.

Use our quick tool to test how much bandwidth you need for your home Wi-Fi network.

Fiber internet is the fastest type of internet connection. It uses cables made of bundled fiber-optic strands to transmit large amounts of data with light signals. Most fiber internet plans give you 1,000 Mbps speeds, although some providers can get you speeds of up to 2,000 Mbps or even 5,000 Mbps. Fiber is also the only type of internet that gives you symmetrical upload speeds—so your uploads will be just as fast as your downloads.

Your internet can be slow for many reasons. Your internet plan may be too slow for your needs, your modem or router may be out of date, your router may be on the fritz, or you might have too many people using your Wi-Fi at the same time. We can help you identify where the problem is and how to fix it.

You can improve your internet speed by upgrading to a faster plan, updating your equipment, or taking simpler measures like closing out apps and browser windows. We can walk you through 10 steps to improve your internet speed in just 15 minutes.

Not fast enough?

Enter your zip to see internet speeds and providers available in your area..

View speeds and providers in your area.

What is a good internet speed?

How much internet speed do i need, what is the fastest type of internet, why is my internet so slow, how can i improve my internet speed, do i need a faster router, how do i get faster internet.

What is a good internet speed? |  How much internet speed do I need? |  What is the fastest type of internet? |  Why is my internet so slow? |  How can I improve my internet speed? |  Do I need a faster router? |  How do I get faster internet? |  Who are the fastest internet providers? |  What is a good upload and download speed? |  Why doesn’t my internet speed match my plan? |  What to do if your internet speed is slower than expected |  How to make sense of your speed test results |  How to test your Wi-Fi speed

Who are the fastest internet providers?

What is a good upload and download speed.

Why doesn’t my internet speed match my plan?

What to do if your internet speed is slower than expected

How to make sense of your speed test results.

How to test your Wi-Fi speed

A good internet speed is at least 25Mbps download and 3Mbps upload. These internet speeds are the bare minimum for a broadband connection as defined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). But you’ll get better results with an internet plan that supports download speeds between 40–100Mbps.

That said, no one wants to overpay for internet speed. You can use our How Much Speed Do You Need? Tool to generate a personalized internet speed recommendation based on how your household uses the internet. Find that sweet spot of sufficient download speed without overpaying for speed you won’t use.

Find Your Ideal Internet Speed

You need at least 25Mbps download speeds and 3Mbps upload speeds to effectively stream, game, download, and Zoom online with minimal slowdowns and buffering. But if you live with three or more people, you’ll be better off with 100Mbps download speeds and 10Mbps upload speeds to support more users and bandwidth-heavy tasks.

Fiber internet is the fastest type of internet connection. It uses cables made of bundled fiber-optic strands to transmit large amounts of data with light signals. Most fiber internet plans give you 1,000Mbps speeds, although some providers can get you speeds of up to 2,000Mbps or even 5,000Mbps. Fiber is also the only type of internet that gives you symmetrical upload speeds—so your uploads will be just as fast as your downloads.

View Fiber Internet Providers

How to Fix Slow Internet

10 Steps to a Faster Wi-Fi Connection

You need a faster router if your current router is using outdated Wi-Fi standards. Anything older than Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac) or Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) doesn’t get you appropriate speeds equal to what’s capable on most high-speed internet connections.

Even a router that’s just a few years old might not meet appropriate speed standards, depending on your connection. Look into your router’s spects to see its Wi-Fi standards and max speeds and get a new router if it’s an older model. We have more information on when and how to replace an outdated router .

How to Replace Your Outdated Router

You can get faster internet by upgrading your internet plan. If you can’t upgrade your current speeds and feel stuck with bad service, you can also switch to a new provider.

Run a search with your zip code to see what kinds of speeds you can get in your area.

The fastest internet providers are Google Fiber, Verizon Fios, Xfinity, Metronet, and Cox. All of those internet providers offer fiber or cable internet plans with gigabit speeds. See our report on the Fastest Internet Providers .

View Fastest Internet Providers

A download speed of 25Mbps and an upload of 3Mbps is good for most people. That’s enough to let one or two Wi-Fi users play online games, stream video in HD, and attend Zoom meetings with minimal slowdowns or buffering. You will likely want a faster speed if you live in a larger household or do more activities online.

Not sure how much speed you need, exactly? Use our quick tool to test how much bandwidth you need for your home Wi-Fi network.

Why doesn’t my internet speed match my plan?

You likely won’t ever see the maximum speed advertised by your provider in the speed test, but your speed test results should come close. The speeds promised by your internet plan are the max speeds you can expect. Most of the time, your internet speeds will fluctuate within a small range of that max speed. What you see on the speed test is simply where your internet speeds are currently.

Internet providers will state “up to” when advertising maximum speeds because many variables can prevent you from hitting that top speed. You may even see disclaimers like “wireless speeds may vary” because Wi-Fi speeds are always inconsistent no matter what provider you choose—it’s just how Wi-Fi works.

For example, there may be issues with the provider’s service area, like faulty connections somewhere within the neighborhood. Speed may be slow because you’re using the internet at peak times, or your router may be outdated. Roots may be growing into the cable buried in your yard.

There are several reasons why your speed test results might not be as fast as you expected. Try these tips to see if you can get a more accurate reading:

• Temporarily disable your firewall (but don’t forget to turn it back on afterward) and rerun the test.
• Reboot your modem and router, and rerun the test.
• Unplug your router from the modem, plug a desktop or laptop into the modem’s Ethernet port, and rerun the test.
• If you have a wireless gateway rather than a separate modem and router, plug a desktop or laptop into one of the Ethernet ports, and rerun the test.

If you see inconsistent results, there might be a bottleneck on your end. You can troubleshoot poor internet speeds with our guide on how to fix slow internet . But your internet connection may just be slow either from your plan or your internet type.

If nothing helps, call your internet provider or look for a new one.

Here’s a brief overview of what your speed test results mean and how they affect your internet’s performance. For more in-depth information, check out our consumer’s guide to internet speed .

Download speed

The speed at which your device pulls data from the internet. Usually measured in Mbps or Gbps.

Upload speed

The speed at which your device sends data to the internet. Usually measured in Mbps or Gbps.

The time (measured in milliseconds) it takes for a signal to travel from your device to an internet server and back. Lower latency means your connection has a better response time for activities like gaming and livestreams.

A company that provides internet services in a local area. Examples include Xfinity, Spectrum, and Google Fiber.

Internet protocol address—the unique numerical code that identifies an internet-connected device and its geographic location.

The location of the server you connect to in order to run the speed test.

How do I test my Wi-Fi speed?

You can use our internet speed test to check your Wi-Fi speed. Just follow these steps.

Test your Wi-Fi speed with a separate modem and router

Step 1: Run our speed test on a smartphone, tablet, or laptop connected to your Wi-Fi network while standing next to your router and record the speed test results.

Step 2: Connect a wired desktop or laptop to one of the wireless gateway’s Ethernet ports.

Step 3: Rerun our speed test with the wired connection, and compare the results against the first Wi-Fi speed test.If you see a huge difference between the two tests, check out our guide on what to do if you’re experiencing slow Wi-Fi .

Looking for an easy way to test and track your internet speed on your phone?

Download our free, easy-to-use speed test app for quick and reliable results.

Looking for provider speed test results?

Avg. Speed: 56.92Mbps*

View Full Results

Avg. Speed: 90.23Mbps*

CenturyLink

Avg. Speed: 26.93Mbps*

Avg. Speed: 65.59Mbps*

Avg. Speed: 61.28Mbps*

Avg. Speed: 93.76Mbps*

*Average of HighSpeedInternet.com speed test results for all provider’s users.

• Federal Communications Commission, “ Measuring Fixed Broadband — Eighth Report ,” December 14, 2018. Accessed September 30, 2021.

Read page in Spanish