In these countries, people are imprisoned for criticizing the government online. Western leaders are applauding and even assisting them in expanding their ability to identify internet users.
Originally published in Papercuts.
Influential figures in the democratic world, including French President Emmanuel Macron and scholar Jonathan Haidt, are praising governments that have jailed people for online speech for adopting new internet restrictions. Applause for the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, and Indonesia—countries that the U.S. State Department describes as having “serious restrictions on internet freedom”—for further limiting this freedom is alarming. Worse, the U.K. government co-hosted events in these countries, inviting those governments to advance age assurance there. These are not governments merely experimenting with online safety policies. Each member of this trio has a long record of censorship and punishing dissent. When leaders in free societies celebrate these regimes as models, they have granted a dangerous permission.
The UAE recently enacted a minimum age of 15 for users of five large social media platforms and age verification for all users. This move drew praise from a surprising voice. French President Emmanuel Macron responded to this news saying, “Thanks for joining the movement.” It is remarkable that the leader of a liberal democracy would praise a country like the UAE—one that bans internet users from accessing all kinds of information and free speech including “ridicule” of the government or its leaders—for furthering its goal of a restricted internet. In the UAE, it’s illegal to even access content that encourages leaving Islam, embraces “homosexuality,” “statements” ridiculing the UAE’s rulers, and “true” “comments” about one’s private life if it would harm the person. Internet service providers are required to block all of this and content “that is involved in planning, organizing, promoting or calling for demonstrations, marches or the like without authorization from the competent authority.”
This new rule also requires that platforms “prevent users from circumventing age-verification systems.” This is clearly targeted at Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), which can be used to avoid age checks—but are also tools of freedom that allow users to maintain more privacy from many entities including the government. VPNs are already regulated in the UAE, as it’s illegal to use them or the internet in general to access restricted content.
These concerns are not hypothetical. Arrests are common. Many users have even been arrested and charged for sharing content about the Iran war in the UAE. The same government is now requiring many social media users to verify their identity before speaking online—and Macron is celebrating the move.
He is not alone. Social psychologist, author, and prominent advocate for greater protections for youth online Jonathan Haidt praised several countries with troubling records on internet freedom for adopting age-verification laws. “Congrats Malaysia, for joining Australia and Indonesia as countries currently enforcing age limits for having social media accounts, with Canada, the UK, the United Arab Emirates, Spain and many others soon to follow,” wrote Haidt on X.
Like the UAE, the Malaysian government regularly cracks down on those who criticize or even question its government, including by removing online content to this effect. The government permits Muslims to follow only the Sunni branch of Islam, while followers of other Islamic sects can face detention. The makers of an indie film about a Muslim teen exploring other religions were charged by the government. The country also bans films showing LGBT people and content “conflicting with Islamic beliefs.” Authorities have gone so far as to confiscate rainbow watches.
Indonesia presents similar concerns. Authorities regularly force online services to remove content critical of the government, along with pro-LGBT content. The government also arrests its critics. And it blocks over a million websites with a variety of content, including that related to LGBT, news, sex education, religion, and human rights.
Even worse—the age verification industry and the U.K. government are encouraging these governments to implement the age verification laws that will allow them to more closely track and restrict the freedom of their people. Tony Allen, the executive director of the U.K.-accredited Age Check Certification Scheme workedwith the Indonesian government to advance the new age assurance law. Allen also advocatedfor age assurance in Malaysia and the UAE, with events marketed to government officials. He explainsthat these events were organized “as a part of our work with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Business and Trade”—departments of the U.K. government. The event pages encourage attendance from “government and regulatory authorities” as well as “identity and age assurance service providers seeking to expand into the Middle East market.” However, it is unclear to what extent the U.K. government worked directly with those two governments.
Even the Age Verification Providers Association (AVPA) showcases social media restrictions in the UAE and Malaysia, noting strengthened “privacy protections” and “technical blocking tools.” The AVPA even praises the UAE’s requirements that internet service providers implement “complementary safeguards” like “network-level content filtering.” This is the same country where ISPs are required to block certain jokes and criticism of the government. Furthering these online restrictions is nothing to celebrate. Neither of these pages raise any concern about the civil liberties of residents.
It is a mistake to treat all governments implementing age verification policies as equivalent. Praising governments like Canada, the United States, or Australia for embracing the policy is one matter. Although age-verification systems raise serious problems with privacy, anonymity, and free expression, there is a profound difference between a liberal democracy adopting a problematic internet policy and an authoritarian or oppressive government expanding its ability to identify, monitor, and restrict online speech—and, ultimately, jail more people for free expression. Leaders should recognize that distinction before celebrating these regimes as examples to follow. Unfortunately, other illiberal countries can now pursue similar policies with license from influential figures and governments in the free world.