A surreal illustration representing the limitations of censorship in controlling information flow.

Can Censorship Ever Truly Work? Unpacking the Complexities of Media Control in Democracies

Author's portrait.
Beau Callahan in Politics & Policy June 2025 • 4 min read.

"A new study reveals the surprising limits of censorship, even in the face of coordinated efforts to combat misinformation."


In an era defined by the rapid spread of information and misinformation, democracies grapple with the challenge of safeguarding public discourse from manipulation. Autocratic regimes have long employed censorship to stifle dissent and control narratives within their borders, but the question remains: Can censorship be a viable tool for democracies seeking to curb the influence of slanted narratives, propaganda, and foreign interference?

The debate around censorship is particularly thorny in democratic societies, where freedom of speech and independent media are considered cornerstones of the social order. Balancing the need to protect citizens from harmful disinformation with the commitment to upholding fundamental rights requires a nuanced understanding of censorship's true impact. Is it an effective means of shaping public opinion, or does it merely drive deceptive narratives underground, prompting unintended consequences?

New research offers a glimpse into the complexities of censorship in a democratic context. By examining the European Union's ban on Russian state-backed media outlets following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the study sheds light on censorship's effectiveness, its limitations, and the adaptive strategies employed by those seeking to circumvent media controls.

The EU's Bold Move: Banning Russian State Media

A surreal illustration representing the limitations of censorship in controlling information flow.

In March 2022, the European Union took an unprecedented step, banning Russian state-backed media outlets like Russia Today and Sputnik. The goal was to counter the spread of Russian narratives justifying the invasion of Ukraine and to protect public opinion from what it deemed to be disinformation. The ban, implemented swiftly, blocked all activity by these outlets across the EU, including their online platforms.

To assess the impact of this censorship, researchers analyzed a dataset of 775,616 English-language tweets from 133,276 users, focusing on the period surrounding the ban. They employed a difference-in-differences strategy, comparing social media discourse in EU countries enforcing the ban (Austria, France, Germany, Ireland, and Italy) with that in non-EU countries (Switzerland and the United Kingdom), where no such restrictions were in place. This approach allowed them to isolate the specific effects of the ban, while accounting for broader trends and events.

  • Measuring Media Slant: To quantify pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian slant, the researchers used a method based on linguistic similarity, comparing the language of tweets to that used by official Russian and Ukrainian government accounts.
  • Defining 'Interaction Users': The study focused on 'interaction users,' those who had previously engaged with the banned outlets. This group was considered key, as they were directly affected by the ban and potentially served as links in spreading pro-Russian narratives.
  • Analyzing the Data: By examining changes in media slant, content production (tweeting), and content spread (retweeting), the researchers aimed to comprehensively understand the ban's impact.
The initial findings suggested a positive, but limited, impact. The ban reduced pro-Russian slant among interaction users, particularly those with the highest pre-ban slant levels. However, this effect was short-lived, with the slant returning to near pre-ban levels within two weeks. Moreover, the ban had an indirect effect on non-interaction users, decreasing the amount of pro-Russian content they retweeted.

The Unintended Consequences: Adaptive Strategies and the Limits of Control

The study reveals that, while censorship may initially curb the spread of specific narratives, its long-term effectiveness is questionable. Other suppliers of propaganda may actively seek to mitigate the ban's influence by intensifying their activity, effectively counteracting the persistence and reach of the ban. This suggests that censorship, while a tempting tool for policymakers, may not be a silver bullet against the spread of disinformation. Understanding these adaptive strategies and the limits of control is crucial for shaping effective policies that safeguard democratic discourse without infringing on fundamental rights.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.03393,

Title: Censorship In Democracy

Subject: econ.gn q-fin.ec

Authors: Marcel Caesmann, Janis Goldzycher, Matteo Grigoletto, Lorenz Gschwent

Published: 05-06-2024

Everything You Need To Know

1

What was the main goal of the European Union's ban on Russian state-backed media?

The European Union's ban on media outlets like Russia Today and Sputnik aimed to counter the spread of Russian narratives justifying the invasion of Ukraine. The EU sought to protect public opinion from disinformation by blocking all activity from these outlets across its member states and online platforms.

2

How did researchers measure the impact of the European Union's censorship on social media discourse?

Researchers used a difference-in-differences strategy, comparing social media discourse in EU countries enforcing the ban with non-EU countries. They analyzed a dataset of English-language tweets, focusing on 'interaction users' and employing linguistic similarity to quantify pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian slant. This method allowed them to isolate the specific effects of the ban and account for broader trends.

3

What were the initial findings regarding the effectiveness of the European Union's ban on Russian media?

The initial findings suggested a positive, but limited, impact. The ban reduced pro-Russian slant among 'interaction users,' particularly those with the highest pre-ban slant levels. However, this effect was short-lived, with the slant returning to near pre-ban levels within two weeks. The ban also decreased the amount of pro-Russian content retweeted by non-interaction users.

4

What are the 'interaction users' and why were they the focus of the study assessing the EU ban's effectiveness?

The study defined 'interaction users' as those who had previously engaged with the banned outlets. This group was considered key because they were directly affected by the ban and potentially served as links in spreading pro-Russian narratives. Analyzing their behavior provided insights into how censorship directly impacted individuals most likely to be exposed to the banned content.

5

What unintended consequences were observed, and what do they reveal about the long-term effectiveness of censorship?

The study revealed that censorship's long-term effectiveness is questionable. One key finding was that other sources of propaganda may actively seek to mitigate the ban's influence, counteracting its reach. This suggests that censorship may not be a 'silver bullet' against disinformation, as it can drive deceptive narratives underground and lead to adaptive strategies by those seeking to circumvent media controls. It highlights the need for a nuanced approach to safeguarding democratic discourse.

Newsletter Subscribe

Subscribe to get the latest articles and insights directly in your inbox.