Can Countries Control What Shows Up on the Internet?
Despite efforts to control online content through censorship, true control over the Internet will remain elusive.
Across the globe, governments are grappling with a question that defines the modern information age: Can a country truly control what its citizens see online? Some regimes seek to block content outright, while others aim to filter out what they consider misinformation. But the digital terrain is slippery, and control—real control—remains elusive.
Much of the concern stems from the rapid dissemination of information. A single tweet, video, or news article can ricochet across the planet in seconds. That speed is a marvel for free expression but a nightmare for governments trying to manage their narratives. Public opinion isn’t just shaped—it’s often hijacked—by what goes viral. For leaders wary of unrest or eager to maintain a specific image, search engines become battlegrounds. What shows up on the first page of Google can shape perception more than any press conference.
A 2023 Pew study found that nearly three-quarters of adults worldwide trust search engines more than social media when it comes to news. That’s not just a data point—it’s a warning sign. Platforms like Google wield extraordinary power over what people see and, more importantly, what they believe.
To reassert control, governments use a patchwork of tools. Some resort to outright censorship. China’s infamous Great Firewall remains the most expansive example, filtering search results, blocking sites like Google and YouTube, and suppressing foreign media. Iran and Russia have adopted similar tactics. Following its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Russia blocked access to Facebook and Twitter. But these digital barriers are rarely airtight. VPNs and anonymizing tools like
Tor remains widespread, especially among younger, more tech-savvy users. Even so, the strategy works more often than not. Most citizens, faced with friction, tend to stick to what is accessible.
Legislation is another tool of control. In Europe, the “Right to Be Forgotten” allows individuals to request that outdated or irrelevant search results be removed. Since 2014, Google has processed over 1.4 million such requests, as cited in its transparency reports. India and Turkey have taken it a step further, requiring platforms to take down flagged content within narrow time frames—sometimes as short as 24 hours. If companies don’t comply, the penalties can be steep: fines, access blocks, or both.
However, a larger issue is at play: geography. Can a country compel global platforms to adhere to local rules outside their borders? In 2019, the European Union said no—Google wasn’t obligated to apply delisting requests beyond EU territory. It was a reminder that the Internet may be borderless, but regulation is not.
Pressure doesn’t always come from courtrooms or parliaments. Sometimes, it’s a quiet standoff. In 2020, Australia enacted legislation requiring tech companies to pay local news outlets. Facebook’s reaction was swift and dramatic: news links vanished from Australian users’ feeds overnight. The blackout lasted days before negotiations produced a compromise. It wasn’t censorship in the traditional sense, but it revealed something essential—governments can force tech giants to the table if they apply enough pressure.
In rare cases, countries have tried to circumvent the global Internet entirely. Russia’s RuNet, for instance, was stress-tested to function in isolation. China’s model is even more advanced, boasting its own platforms, apps, and digital infrastructure. North Korea stands alone in extremity—its citizens are limited to a closed, government-curated network known as Kwangmyong, which omits the outside world entirely.
These experiments in digital sovereignty come at a price—innovation withers behind firewalls. Foreign investment hesitates. Collaboration with international firms becomes cumbersome. A tech engineer based in Seoul noted that working with Chinese partners often feels like trying to communicate between two parallel universes. Search results don’t align. Shared tools break down. Even basic libraries aren’t always compatible.
Meanwhile, tech companies are caught in the middle. What if a country wants to remove Google search results, not just in their country, but across the World Wide Web? They don’t want to be Internet police—but they also don’t want to be locked out of massive markets. The result is a balancing act. Google, for instance, regularly customizes its platforms to comply with local regulations. Its transparency reports indicate tens of thousands of annual government takedown requests, with about 60% granted. These range from hate speech to copyright violations. Yet every takedown risks undermining user trust. Bend too far, and companies look complicit. Push back too hard, and they risk digital exile.
The bigger challenge is global misinformation. It spreads faster than fact-checkers can keep up with, and what constitutes harmful content varies from country to country. Efforts to police falsehoods often feel like trying to hold water in your hands.
Building media literacy is a long-term solution. When people are taught to question sources and verify facts, they’re less likely to fall for misinformation in the first place. However, education takes time, and few governments invest in it on a large scale. Transparency from platforms can also help. If users know why a result appears—or why it’s been removed—they’re better equipped to understand what they’re seeing. Context, not just content, becomes key.
Rather than scrubbing the Internet clean, some experts advocate for a shift in mindset. Don’t erase—add. Update stories. Link to corrections. Provide timestamps. Misinformation thrives in shadows; truth gains power in light.
Ultimately, countries can shape their own corner of the Internet. They can block URLs, demand removals, and even build walled-off alternatives. But the idea of total control is mostly an illusion. Information, once released, rarely disappears. It’s copied, cached, and archived. The Internet forgets nothing—and people, armed with even a sliver of curiosity, will find what they’re looking for.
As one analyst aptly put it, “You can block a URL, but you can’t block curiosity. People will always find a way to learn more.” That may be the greatest challenge facing governments in the digital age. Not just what’s online—but the irrepressible human drive to seek it out.