Much research has shown that online news engenders greater political participation, but less attention has been paid to how the relationship can be suppressed by government online surveillance and censorship, especially as Internet freedoms continue to decline in many parts of the world. Drawing from 2017–20 World Value Survey and Varieties of Democracy project data, we conducted multilevel analyses across forty-four countries from seven continents that have different political and media systems. Results showed that online news and online surveillance were positively related to political engagement while online censorship was negatively related. Cross-level interactions also showed some support for the informational theory of repression, whereby the relationships among online news, surveillance, and engagement were conditioned at different levels of online censorship. The results suggest that while country-level online surveillance and censorship is highly correlated, varying levels can engender or suppress political engagement in different ways, which have implications for future studies on the dynamics of government digital repression and citizen participation in politics from a global comparative perspective.
AouraghMiriyamAlexanderAnne. 2011. “The Egyptian Experience: Sense and Nonsense of the Internet Revolution.” International Journal of Communication5:1344–58.
2.
AttonChris. 2007. “Current Issues in Alternative Media Research.” Sociology Compass1 (1): 17–27. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00005.x.
3.
BestSamuel J.KruegerBrian S.. 2010. “Government Monitoring and Political Participation in the United States: The Distinct Roles of Anger and Anxiety.” American Politics Research39 (1): 85–117. doi:10.1177/1532673x10380848.
4.
BoulianneShelley. 2009. “Does Internet Use Affect Engagement? A Meta-Analysis of Research.” Political Communication26: 193–211. doi:10.1080/10584600902854363.
5.
BoulianneShelley. 2019. “Revolution in the Making? Social Media Effects Across the Globe.” Information, Communication & Society22 (1): 39–54. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2017.1353641.
6.
BoulianneShelley. 2020. “Twenty Years of Digital Media Effects on Civic and Political Participation.” Communication Research47 (7): 947–66. doi:10.1177/0093650218808186.
7.
BradyHenry E.VerbaSidneySchlozmanKay Lehman. 1995. “Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation.” American Political Science Review89 (2): 271–94. doi: 10.2307/2082425.
8.
BrooksMollie E.KristensenKaspervan BenthemKoen J.MagnussonArniBergCasper W.NielsenAndersSkaugHans J.MaechlerMartinBolkerBenjamin M.. 2017. “glmmTMB Balances Speed and Flexibility Among Packages for Zero-Inflated Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling.” The R Journal9 (2): 378–400.
9.
BüchiMoritzFesticNoemiLatzerMichael. 2022. “The Chilling Effects of Digital Dataveillance: A Theoretical Model and an Empirical Research Agenda.” Big Data & Society9 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1177/20539517211065368.
10.
ChaeYounggilLeeSookjungKimYeolib. 2018. “Meta-analysis of the Relationship Between Internet Use and Political Participation: Examining Main and Moderating Effects.” Asian Journal of Communication29 (1): 35–54. doi:10.1080/01292986.2018.1499121.
11.
ChanMichael. 2016. “Social Network Sites and Political Engagement: Exploring the Impact of Facebook Connections and Uses on Political Protest and Participation.” Mass Communication and Society19 (4): 430–51. doi:10.1080/15205436.2016.1161803.
12.
ChibuweAlbertMpofuPhillipBhowaKudakwashe. 2021. “Naming the Ghost: Self-Naming, Pseudonyms, and Identities of Phantoms on Zimbabwean Twitter.” Social Media + Society7 (3): 1–12. doi:10.1177/20563051211035694.
13.
CoppedgeMichaelGerringJohnKnutsenCarl HenrikLindbergStaffan I.TeorellJanMarquardtKyle L.MedzihorskyJuraj, Daniel Pemstein, Nazifa Alizada, Lisa Gastaldi, Garry Hindle, Josefine Pernes, Johannes von Römer, Eitan Tzelgov, Yi-ting Wang, and Steven Wilson. 2021. V-Dem Methodology v11.1: Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.
14.
CoxeStefanyWestStephen G.AikenLeona S.. 2009. “The Analysis of Count Data: A Gentle introduction to Poisson Regression and its Alternatives.” Journal of Personality Assessment91 (2): 121–36. doi:10.1080/00223890802634175.
DavenportChristianSullivanChristopher Michael. 2017. “The Rebel Alliance Strikes Back: Understanding the Politics of Backlash Mobilization*.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly22 (1): 39–56. doi:10.17813/1086-671x-22-1-39.
17.
DiamondLarry. 2010. “Liberation Technology.” Journal of Democracy21 (3): 69–83. doi:10.1353/jod.0.0190.
18.
EarlJenniferMaherThomas V.PanJennifer. 2022. “The Digital Repression of Social Movements, Protest, and Activism: A Synthetic Review.” Science Advances8 (10): eabl8198. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abl8198.
19.
EsareyJustinMengerAndrew. 2018. “Practical and Effective Approaches to Dealing With Clustered Data.” Political Science Research and Methods7 (3): 541–59. doi:10.1017/psrm.2017.42.
GainousJasonWagnerKevin M.AbbottJason P.. 2015. “Civic Disobedience: Does Internet Use Stimulate Political Unrest in East Asia?” Journal of Information Technology & Politics12 (2): 219–36. doi:10.1080/19331681.2015.1034909.
22.
HaberkornTyrell. 2018. “Dictatorship, Monarchy, and Freedom of Expression in Thailand.” The Journal of Asian Studies77 (4): 935–43. doi:10.1017/s0021911818002528.
23.
HaerpferC.InglehartR.MorenoA.WelzelC.KizilovaK.Diez-MedranoJ.LagosM.NorrisP.PonarinE.PuranenB.. 2020. World Values Survey: Round Seven – Country-Pooled Datafile. Madrid, Spain & Vienna, Austria: JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat.
24.
HagerAnselmKrakowskiKrzysztof. 2021. “Does State Repression Spark Protests? Evidence from Secret Police Surveillance in Communist Poland.” American Political Science Review116 (2): 564–79. doi:10.1017/s0003055421000770.
25.
HolbertR. LanceParkEsul. 2020. “Conceptualizing, Organizing, and Positing Moderation in Communication Research.” Communication Theory30 (3): 227–46. doi:10.1093/ct/qtz006.
26.
HuangFrancis L. 2016. “Alternatives to Multilevel Modeling for the Analysis of Clustered Data.” The Journal of Experimental Education84 (1): 175–96. doi:10.1080/00220973.2014.952397.
27.
JacksonJohn E. 2019. “Corrected Standard Errors with Clustered Data.” Political Analysis28 (3): 318–39. doi:10.1017/pan.2019.38.
28.
KargarSiminRauchfleischAdrian. 2019. “State-aligned Trolling in Iran and the Double-Edged Affordances of Instagram.” New Media & Society21 (7): 1506–27. doi:10.1177/1461444818825133.
29.
KingGaryRobertsMargaret E.. 2015. “How Robust Standard Errors Expose Methodological Problems They Do Not Fix, and What to Do About It.” Political Analysis23 (2): 159–79. doi:10.1093/pan/mpu015.
30.
KruegerBrian S. 2005. “Government Surveillance and Political Participation on the Internet.” Social Science Computer Review23 (4): 439–52. doi:10.1177/0894439305278871.
31.
LiuSidaWangDi. 2021. “Censorship: State Control of Expression.” In Routledge Handbook of Law and Society, ed. ValverdeM.ClarkeK.Darian-SmithE.KotiswaranP., 86–9. New York, NY: Routledge.
32.
Moore-GilbertKylieAbdul-NabiZainab. 2021. “Authoritarian Downgrading, (Self)Censorship and New Media Activism After the Arab Spring.” New Media & Society23 (5): 875–93. doi:10.1177/1461444818821367.
33.
NisbetErik C.KamenchukOlgaDalAysenur. 2017. “A Psychological Firewall? Risk Perceptions and Public Support for Online Censorship in Russia*.” Social Science Quarterly98 (3): 958–75. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12435.
34.
PanJenniferSiegelAlexandra A.. 2019. “How Saudi Crackdowns Fail to Silence Online Dissent.” American Political Science Review114 (1): 109–25. doi:10.1017/s0003055419000650.
35.
PenneyJonathon W. 2017. “Internet Surveillance, Regulation, and Chilling Effects Online: A Comparative Case Study.” Internet Policy Review6 (2): 1–39. doi:10.14763/2017.2.692.
36.
Pop–ElechesGrigoreWayLucan A.. 2021. “Censorship and the Impact of Repression on Dissent.” American Journal of Political Science, 1–16. doi:10.1111/ajps.12633.
37.
RichardsNeil M. 2013. “The Dangers of Surveillance.” Harvard Law Review126 (7): 1934–65.
38.
RobertsMargaret. 2018. Censored. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
RuijgrokKris. 2016. “From the Web to the Streets: Internet and Protests Under Authoritarian Regimes.” Democratization, 1–23. doi:10.1080/13510347.2016.1223630.
40.
SchlozmanKay LehmanVerbaSidneyBradyHenry E.. 2010. “Weapon of the Strong? Participatory Inequality and the Internet.” Perspectives on Politics8 (2): 487–509. doi:10.1017/s1537592710001210.
41.
SkoricMarko MZhuQinfengGohDebbiePangNatalie. 2016. “Social Media and Citizen Engagement: A Meta-Analytic Review.” New Media & Society18 (9): 1817–39. doi:10.1177/1461444815616221.
42.
SteinElizabeth A. 2017. “Are ICTs Democratizing Dictatorships? New Media and Mass Mobilization*.” Social Science Quarterly98 (3): 914–41. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12439.
43.
StoycheffElizabethBurgessG. ScottMartucciMaria Clara. 2020. “Online Censorship and Digital Surveillance: The Relationship Between Suppression Technologies and Democratization Across Countries.” Information, Communication & Society23 (4): 474–90. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2018.1518472.
44.
StoycheffElizabethLiuJuanXuKaiWibowoKunto. 2019. “Privacy and the Panopticon: Online Mass Surveillance’s Deterrence and Chilling Effects.” New Media & Society21 (3): 602–19. doi:10.1177/1461444818801317.
45.
ValentinoNicholas A.NeunerFabian G.KaminJuliaBaileyMichael. 2020. “Testing Snowden’s Hypothesis Does Mere Awareness Drive Opposition to Government Surveillance?” Public Opinion Quarterly84 (4): 958–85. doi:10.1093/poq/nfaa050.
46.
van der BlesAnne MarthePostmesTomLeKander-KanisBabetOtjesSimon. 2018. “The Consequences of Collective Discontent: A New Measure of Zeitgeist Predicts Voting for Extreme Parties.” Political Psychology39 (2): 381–98. doi:10.1111/pops.12424.
47.
van DethJan W. 2014. “A Conceptual Map of Political Participation.” Acta Politica49 (3): 349–67. doi:10.1057/ap.2014.6.
48.
VerverisVasilisMarguelSophiaFabianBenjamin. 2019. “Cross–Country Comparison of Internet Censorship: A Literature Review.” Policy & Internet12 (4): 450–73. doi:10.1002/poi3.228.
49.
VissersSaraStolleDietlind. 2014. “The Internet and New Modes of Political Participation: Online Versus Offline Participation.” Information, Communication & Society17 (8): 937–55. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2013.867356.
50.
VuoriJuha AnteroPaltemaaLauri. 2015. “The Lexicon of Fear: Chinese Internet Control Practice in Sina Weibo Microblog Censorship.” Surveillance & Society13: 400–21.
51.
YalkinÇağriKerriganFinolavom LehnDirk. 2013. “(Il)Legitimisation of the Role of the Nation State: Understanding of and Reactions to Internet Censorship in Turkey.” New Media & Society16 (2): 271–89. doi:10.1177/1461444813479762.
52.
YinSiyuanSunYu. 2020. “Intersectional Digital Feminism: Assessing the Participation Politics and Impact of the MeToo Movement in China.” Feminist Media Studies21 (7): 1176–92. doi:10.1080/14680777.2020.1837908.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
