B3: အင်တာနက်Yင 4 ့် ဒီဂျစ်တယ်အေDကာင်းအရာများအေပ: ကန်သ ့် င်းြမင်သာမ,၊ ေဖာ်ြပထားသည့ ် ့ တ်ချက်များ ြပMလFပ်ရာတွင ် ပွငလ ၀ မ4တ ် ရည်ရွယ်ချက်များY4င ့် အချိMးညီမ, သိမဟF F ့ တ ် လွတလ ် ပ် စာွ အယNခံ၀င်Yင ိF ေ ် သာ လFပ်ငန်းစgများ ကင်းမဲ့ေနပါသလား။ (၀-၄ မ4တ)် B3: Do restrictions on the internet and digital content lack transparency, proportionality to the stated aims, or an independent appeals process? (0–4 points) Since the coup, broad restrictions on digital content have been enforced without transparency and with gross disproportionality. The military-controlled PTD administered the military’s orders without publishing information on what, why, when, or how restriction decisions were made, or by whom.121 The only available sources of information about restrictions have been media comments from ministers, service providers’ statements, and civil society. The only service provider documenting the receipt of PTD orders, Telenor, stopped doing so in mid-February 2021, citing concerns for the safety of its staff.122 Telenor then provided irregular updates until mid-April 2021, and later stopped entirely.123 By the end of the coverage period, only civil society and media organizations are providing information on military blocking orders, though no public records exist. Under the Telecommunications Law, the PTD can direct telecommunications providers to temporarily block and filter content “for the benefit of the people,” and does not allow for appeals.124 There were no legal challenges to restrictions either before or after the coup. The NLD government occasionally articulated vague aims, and the military, when it did offer a rationale, included only vague references to “fake news” and the need to protect national stability and ensure public security.125 The draft Cyber Security Law introduced in January 2022 would require digital platforms to remove a wide range of content, including online criticism, with provisions requiring removal of “verbal statements against any existing law,” “expressions that damage an individual’s social standing and livelihood,” and content “disrupting unity, stabilisation and peace.” The draft law offers no transparency or appeals mechanisms. Sanctions under the bill include blocking orders and criminal liability for company representatives, including as much as three years’ imprisonment.126 0 Social media companies have introduced new moderation systems and governance on a global basis in recent years. In 2018, Facebook increased its moderation activity, expanded its appeals process,127 and established a self-regulatory Oversight Board.128 The platform’s parent company, Meta, publishes very little information about its moderation aside from routine transparency disclosures about global content removals.129 Facebook also suspended much of its appeals process in 2020, citing the COVID-19 pandemic.130 In August 2021, the Oversight Board overturned a decision to remove a Myanmar post that was labeled as hate speech; the post discussed possible methods to limit financing for the military. However, the overall effect of this decision on moderation remains unclear.131 Activists have continued to raise concerns that some of Facebook’s removals have compromised the public’s right to know about important national stakeholders, and that they have swept up a wide range of valid content, including commentary on and documentation of human rights violations. Some in Myanmar’s civil society suspect that these decisions are the result of internal problems, such as poorly trained staff, problematic automated content moderation, weak coordination, lack of investment,132 and discriminatory decisionmaking.133 For example, some Rohingya activists believe that content removal trends demonstrate anti-Rohingya prejudices among content reviewers.134 Other platforms have also been criticized for transparency and proportionality in content removal practices. After the February 2021 coup, YouTube initially removed some channels, including the state-owned MRTV and the military-owned Myawaddy Media, MWD Variety, and MWD Myanmar,135 but has apparently done little since.136 Following international media attention137 and civil society criticism,138 TikTok removed some videos posted by soldiers on its platform; many videos depicted soldiers threatening peaceful protesters ် ပ်မ/ - ြမန်မာ2ိင 4 င ် ံ Free Expression Myanmar (FEM) and Freedom House - Freedom of the Net: Myanmar - အင်တာနက်ေပ*တွင် လွတလ