Control through banning: mathematical modeling of the impact of censorship restrictions on the spread of information

Censorship in various forms is a widespread method of controlling the information space. Two different censorship strategies are possible. The first of them focuses on preventing criticism of the authorities, the second one allows criticism, but prevents content that promotes collective protest actions. Recent studies show that the first strategy is ineffective, since content distributors, on the one hand, and its consumers, on the other, find ways to circumvent censorship restrictions. In the absence of direct assessments of the efficiency of the second strategy, the question is: Can it be more effective? In other words, if censorship is ineffective in combating criticism of the government and its policies, is it capable of preventing content that promotes collective actions? For what reason can censorship strategies have different effectiveness despite the fact that circumvention methods are universal? In order to study this issue, mathematical modeling is used in this article. A dynamic model is constructed in the form of a system of four equations with discrete time. Numerical experiments were conducted with it, which showed that the use of censorship slows down the distribution of content. In the case of criticism of the authorities, this slowdown does not play a significant role, since public interest in topics such as corruption or economic inequality is permanent. In contrast, content such as, for example, a call to participate in a collective action is relevant only for a short time. Therefore, slowing down the distribution of this kind of content is critical. Thus, the simulation shows that the use of censorship in relation to content that promotes collective actions is more effective than the use of censorship in relation to criticism of the government.

1. Akhremenko A.S. Internet shutdown as a theoretical problem in political science, or what we (don’t) understand about online protest mobilization. Polis. Political studies. 2024, N 2, P. 118–134. (In Russ.)

2. Boldyreva A., Sobolevskiy O., Alexandrov M., Danilova V. Creating collections of descriptors of events and processes based on Internet queries. In: Sidorov G., Herrera-Alcántara O. (eds). Advances in computational intelligence. Proceedings of the 14-th Mexican International conference on artificial intelligence. (MICAI-2016). Cham: Springer Cham, 2016, P. 303–314.

3. Chkhartishvili A.G., Gubanov D.A., Novikov D.A. Social networks: models of information influence, control and confrontation. Cham: Springer international publishing, 2019, 188 p.

4. Clare J. ‘I like not this’: сensorship, self-censorship and collaboration in early modern dramatic manuscripts. In: Chiari S. (ed.). Freedom and censorship in early modern English literature. London: Routledge, 2018, P. 48–65.

5. Daley D.J., Kendall D.G. Stochastic rumors. Journal of the Institute of mathematics and its applications. 1965, Vol. 1, N 1, P. 42–55.

6. Golovchenko Y. Fighting propaganda with censorship: a study of the Ukrainian ban on Russian social media. The journal of politics. 2022, N 84 (2), P. 639–654.

7. Gläßel C., Paula K. Sometimes less is more: censorship, news falsification, and disapproval in 1989 East Germany. American journal of political science. 2020, N 64 (3), P. 682–698.

8. Jansen S., Martin B. The Streisand effect and censorship backfire. International journal of communication. 2015, Vol. 9, P. 656–671.

9. King G., Pan J., Roberts M.E. How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. American political science eeview. 2013, N 107 (02), P. 326–343. DOI: www.doi.org/10.1017/s0003055413000014

10. Kozitsin I.V. A general framework to link theory and empirics in opinion formation models. Scientific reports. 2022, Vol. 12, N 1, Article # 5543, P. 1–18.

11. Kozitsin I.V. Opinion formation in online public debates structured in information cascades: a system-theoretic viewpoint. Computers. 2023, Vol. 12, N 9, P. 1–12.

12. Lakomy M. Why do online countering violent extremism strategies not work? The case of digital jihad. Terrorism and political violence. 2022, N 35 (6), P. 1261–1298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2022.2038575

13. Luo Z., Li M. Participatory censorship: how online fandom community facilitates authoritarian rule. New media & society. 2024, Vol. 26, N 7, P. 4236–4254.

14. Petrov A.P., Lebedev S.A. Online political flashmob: the case of 632305222316434. Computational mathematics and information technologies. 2019, N 1, P. 17–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23947/2587-8999-2019-1-1-17-28

15. Petrov A.P., Podlipskaya O.G., Podlipsky O.K. Modeling the dynamics of political positions: network density and minority chances. Computer research and modeling. 2024, Vol. 16, N 3, P. 785–796. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20537/2076-7633-2024-16-3-785-796 (In Russ.)

16. Polański T. The destructive force of Roman censorship. A retrospective view across the limes. In: Styka J. (ed.). From antiquity to modern times: classical poetry and its modern reception. Essays in honor of Stanislaw Stabryla (Classica Cracoviensia). Kraków: Archeobooks, 2007, P. 263–287

17. Pronchev G.B., Goncharova I.V., Lyubimov A.P., Mikhailov A.P. Information security and online education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of higher education theory and practice. 2023, Vol. 23, N 2, P. 218–232.

18. Ruud C.A. Fighting words: Imperial censorship and the Russian press, 1804–1906. Toronto: University of Toronto press, 2009, 327 p.

19. Sedashov E., Belenkov V., Koncha V. The effect of Internet shutdowns on protest activity in India: an empirical investigation. In: Tsvirkun A. (ed.). Proceedings of the 16-th International conference management of large-scale system development (MLSD), Moscow, Russia, September 26-28, 2023. New York: IEEE, 2023, P. 1–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MLSD58227.2023.10304037

20. Santos Okholm C., Fard A.E., ten Thij M. Blocking the information war? Testing the effectiveness of the EU's censorship of Russian state propaganda among the fringe communities of Western Europe. Internet policy review. 2024, Vol. 3, N 3, P. 1–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14763/2024.3.1788

21. Whitfield S. Under the censor's eye: printed almanacs and censorship in ninth-century China. The British library journal. 1998, N 24 (1), P. 4–22.

22. Zheglov S.A. Finding patterns in the dynamics of protest campaigns: computational modeling and empirical analysis. Sociology: methodology, methods, mathematical modeling (Sociology: 4M). 2022, N 54–55, P. 129–187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/4m.2022.31.1-2.5 (In Russ.)

23. Zhu J., Bai S., Kang S., Wang J., Liu K. Authoritarian cue effect of state repression. American journal of political science. 2024, Vol. 68, N 4, P. 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12916