Internet Freedom in Australia
In Australia, the internet is considered as "free," although there remains a considerable concern regarding the authority's unconstrained access to user metadata and the excessive penalties for online defamation. The country enjoys affordable, high-quality internet access as well as other digital media. Over the past years, this access has continually grown, thanks to the rollout of the National Broadband Network (Freedomhouse.org, 2018). However, the government has faced criticism for the project's delayed and inconsistent implementation.
Online Content and Defamation
On the country, content is available online, and there have not been any claims whatsoever, of filtering or blocking of social and political information. Conversely, courts have fined highly for defamation, instilling fears that internet users may be forced to self-censor as a repercussion. Last year, the Australian government elucidated that metadata cannot be applied as evidence in civil lawsuits. Nevertheless, questions still arise concerning the law enforcement's otherwise unconstrained access to user metadata, which telecommunication firms should retain for a couple of years (Freedomhouse.org, 2018). Although law enforcement has to obtain a warrant to access metadata linked to journalists' accounts, there have been incidents of unwarranted access, leading to undermined trust in the freedom.
Regulatory Body and Content Availability
The Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) is the key regulatory body for mobile telephone and internet, and its oversight is hugely considered as independent and fair. Social and political content is not subject to blocking, and there is a free availability of communications applications like YouTube, Facebook, and Skype (Freedomhouse.org, 2018). However, under a narrow set of rules, there may be a blockage of websites that offer illegal services.
Internet Freedom in China
On the contrary, China was ranked the worst abuser of internet freedom last year, marking its third consecutive time in the position. The country keeps implementing policies that pressure firms to verify users' identities and block illegal services and content. Research indicates that some users have been penalized for sharing sensitive commentary and news, with some being incarcerated for eleven years (Freedomhouse.org, 2018).
Internet Controls in China
In October last year, the Chinese government tightened online controls before the 19th National Congress of the ruling party (CCP), where President Xi Jinping cemented his administration for the next term (Freedomhouse.org, 2018). Among the top policy goals of President Xi is the "Cyberspace sovereignty," which has seen him incorporate the related legal charges into a cybersecurity policy (adopted in 2016) (Freedomhouse.org, 2018). According to Yang, Kang, (2019)The law, most of which took effect in mid-2017, strengthened a trend of intensifying pressure on internet agencies to register users using actual names, among other requirements.as well, the legislation dictates that foreign firms store Chinese user data in mainland China.
Internet Gateways and Censorship in China
The Chinese gateway's to the international internet is maintained by nine state-run operators, enabling law enforcement to terminate cross-border information requests. Every service provider is required to subscribe through gateway operators directed by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT). In the past, the Chinese government has terminated access to the entire communications systems, following particular occurrences (Freedomhouse.org, 2018). As well, rights activists, together with their families, may be subjected to network disconnections.
Censorship Apparatus in China
China maintains a sophisticated censorship apparatus, containing not only automated mechanisms but human monitors as well, to block online criticism of events, policies or individuals considered critical to the one-party system. Some communications applications are inaccessible from within the nation without the use of circumvention tools. In China, service providers cannot set up VPNs without licensing, following a crackdown on unauthorized VPN's by the MIIT. As well, several social media and messaging apps are entirely blocked, which isolates the Chinese public from international networks (Freedomhouse.org, 2018). Such apps include Facebook, Google, YouTube, Flickr, WordPress, and Sound Cloud, as well as other Google-operated services like Translate, Google Maps, Analytics, Scholar, and Calendar.
Social Media and Democracy
Globally, social media is making it easier for citizens to have a voice in the administrations. Social media has enabled people to discuss leadership issues, hold leaders accountable, and organize around causes. For example, in 2011, social media was heralded as a technology for liberation when it played a crucial role in the Arab Spring, specifically Tunisia. However, much has changed since then if the 2016 US presidential election is anything to go by. The impact of social media on politics has never been scrutinized so closely when the election brought to the fore the dangers of "fake news," political polarization and foreign meddling. During the 2016 poll in the United States, Russian entities allegedly created and promoted pseudo-Facebook accounts to influence public sentiment (Ohlin, 2016). Therefore, such incidences raise a significant question: what impact does social media have on democracy?
The Dangers of "Fake News"
If one stops to consider what happened in the above example, they will realize just how damaging social media can be to a well-functioning democracy like the United States. Here, Russia used social media as an information weapon to sabotage the United States' democracy. However, foreign interference is not the sole means of corrupting democracy. For instance, last year in Australia, the county's first female Muslim federal MP Anne Aly fell victim to "fake news" following the emergence of an unsubstantiated story about her "refusal" to lay a wreath on Anzac Day on Facebook (George-Allen, 2017). Such is an example of how "fake news" gains traction, becoming the alternative truth on social media. The two cases indicate that if media censorship were applied, then the damage would not have occurred.
The Role of Social Media in Democracy
However, the above cases do not entirely disqualify social media as a contributor to democracy. Through its informal, daily application, social media provides the potential to enhance the relationships between citizens and politics. Democracy is reinforced when online relations are mutual, and politicians are publicly pressured to increase their responsiveness towards the civil society organizations and citizens. Nonetheless, if the public raises its voice, but no leader actively pays attention, then social media will have no impact at all.
Social Media and Same-Sex Marriage in Australia
Last year in Australia, such tendencies surfaced following a national referendum to legalize same-sex marriages. The public went to social media to express personal views, from altering their Facebook avatars to circulating appeals. In this case, social offered an exceptional platform for sharing and forming perceptions regarding this issue. While many other advanced democracies had legalized these unions in the past, it had been a topic of heated legislative and public debate in Australia. However, thanks to social media, there was an impressive turnout in the 2017 poll (80%), where 62% voted "Yes" to ensure the legislation of same-sex marriage on December 7 Harris, (2017).
Conclusion
In conclusion, while social media may enhance the democracy of a country, it may as well damage it. The public may be able to air their opinions regarding political and social matters on social media and keep the politicians in check, but it is still evident how damaging it can be as well when it comes to "fake news," political polarization and foreign meddling. As such, social media does not necessarily make the society more democratic.
References
Freedomhouse.org. (2018). Australia. [online] Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2017/australia [Accessed 21 Sep. 2018].
Freedomhouse.org. (2018). China Country Report | Freedom on the Net 2017. [online] Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2017/china [Accessed 21 Sep. 2018].
George-Allen, S. (2017). Furious Morons Are Abusing A Muslim MP Over A Bogus ANZAC Day Rumour - Pedestrian TV. [online] Pedestrian TV. Available at: https://www.pedestrian.tv/style/furious-morons-are-abusing-a-muslim-mp-over-a-bogus-anzac-day-rumour/ [Accessed 21 Sep. 2018].
Harris, B. (2017). Human Rights and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate in Australia. J. Pol. " L., 10, 60.
House, F. (2009). Freedom of the Press 2008: A global survey of media independence. Rowman " Littlefield Publishers.
Ohlin, J. D. (2016). Did Russian cyber interference in the 2016 election violate international law. Tex. L. Rev., 95, 1579.
Yang, K. C., " Kang, Y. (2019). Real-Name Registration Regulation in China: An Examination of Chinese Netizens' Discussions About Censorship, Privacy, and Political Freedom. In Censorship, Surveillance, and Privacy: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 1098-1124). IGI Global.
