8/22/22, 10:18 PM Myanmar: Freedom on the Net 2019 Country Report | Freedom House B3 0-4 pts Do restrictions on the internet and digital content lack transparency, proportionality to the stated aims, or an independent appeals process? 1/4 A number of restrictions on digital content lack proportionality and transparency. The Telecommunications Law includes a broad provision giving the MoTC the absolute power to temporarily block and filter content “for the benefit of the people.” 78 The law does not explicitly hold intermediaries liable for content, although some provisions are vague and could feasibly be used for content removal. 79 There are also no avenues for appealing restrictions, 80 and the only potential safeguard against abuse, the MCRC, has still not been established (see A5). In lieu of the MCRC, the PTD retains control over content restrictions. It is not clear what content the PTD has restricted to date—if any—or whether there have been attempts to petition the PTD to reverse a decision. 81 ISPs and content hosts have not publicized any content restrictions, and the PTD does not publish procedural information on how or when any such decisions are made, and by whom. Some concerned civil society organizations have suggested that Facebook’s policies have become disproportionate, with the removal of entire accounts and pages rather than addressing specific issues, while providing no due process for those whose accounts have been removed. 82 Moreover, some activists argue that Facebook’s actions have affected the public’s right to information about important national stakeholders and swept up a wide range of legitimate content, including commentary on and documentation of human rights violations. 83 Despite regular requests from civil society, 84 Facebook is only minimally transparent about its restrictions. In a welcome development, in April 2018, Facebook established an appeals process and published its internal community standards enforcement guidelines, 85 although it does not publish substantial information about content removal decisions. The public generally learns about removals through media reports. Some in civil society suspect that such opacity masks significant problems, such as poorly trained staff who lack contextual and language expertise, problematic and insufficient algorithms, 86 and disproportionate decision-making. 87 B4 0-4 pts Do online journalists, commentators, and ordinary users practice self-censorship? 1/4 Self-censorship online remains widespread, including among journalists 88 and women. 89 Journalists, online personalities, and ordinary users face a range of pressures to agree with government narratives on matters relating to the military, big business, armed conflict, religion, and certain sensitive social and religious issues. 90 The use of pseudonyms, which developed during military rule and enables people to speak out with less fear of repercussion, remains common online despite a ban on the practice by Facebook and other social media platforms. 91 Users are also learning to self-censor words and phrases deemed likely to be automatically identified and removed by content hosts such as Facebook, regardless of their legitimacy. 92 https://freedomhouse.org/country/myanmar/freedom-net/2019 8/20