Require anyone who blocks access to information to publish the reasons and scope, and let people appeal
Steps to make it happen
- When a country or company blocks a website or removes an article, it must keep a record of it.
- They tell everyone, in a form anyone can read, why, how far, and for how long.
- For big limits, like shutting off the internet in a whole region, an end date is set in advance.
- Society creates a place where people whose posts were removed, or who can no longer read something, can say it is wrong.
- People who have no tie to the one who set the limit look into each complaint and decide if the limit was right.
- If a limit is found to be a mistake, the content is put back right away so people can read it again.
- Every year, a report is published that sums up what kinds of limits there were and how many.
- It becomes normal for everyone to be able to check later what was hidden from view.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal covers any decision that blocks the road people take to reach information. That includes a government cutting off internet connections or blocking websites, the removal or restricted viewing of publications and library books, the deletion or hiding of posts by the large information platforms that many people use, such as search, video and social media, and decisions to keep research results and data paid for with public money from being released. Those who impose limits are required to record the reason, the rule they relied on, the range of what is covered and the length of time, and, in principle, to make that record public. For wide-reaching measures such as a sudden shutdown of the internet, an end date is set in advance, and any extension requires the reasons to be published again. Speakers who were restricted, and users who can no longer read something, can appeal to a review body that is independent of the one who set the limit. The reviewers are people who take no orders from the party that imposed the limit, such as courts or independent committees. As an exception, when showing the content itself would spread the harm, as with information that exposes a person's private life or images of the sexual exploitation of children, the content is withheld and only the number and type of cases are reported. When immediate disclosure is hard, for example for reasons of security, the record is still handed to the reviewers and made public after a set period. Small providers with few users are allowed to report in a simple format. The format of the records is made the same across countries so that they can be compared.
BenefitsFewer hidden limits, and mistakes can be corrected
When reasons and scope must be published, those who impose limits will choose only decisions they can explain, and it becomes harder to quietly erase opinions they simply dislike. Posts deleted by mistake and blocks that went too far are also more likely to be undone if there is a way to appeal. If the format of the records is shared, researchers, the press and citizen groups can compare the trends of limits across countries and providers, and quickly notice bias or a sudden rise. For users, knowing that the information they see may be missing something for some reason gives them a real occasion to use their skill of judging information. For limits that have a legitimate reason, showing the grounds clears away the suspicion that it is mere censorship and makes it easier to win the understanding of society. In addition, decisions to keep public research results closed are also put on record, which helps protect the flow of knowledge being shared widely. Because the same approach applies to governments and companies alike, it is also less likely that only one of them is watched, which would be unfair.
DrawbacksQuick responses to danger may slow down, and the burden grows
The point that opponents weigh most heavily is the effect on safety. In urgent situations such as calls for violence, preparation for terrorism or false rumors during a disaster, adding steps for records and explanations could slow the response. Publishing the reasons and scope in detail could also show a way around the rules to people trying to slip past them, and there is a worry that showing what was deleted could actually spread the location of harmful information. Also, on the large platforms the number of deletions is enormous, and if every single case were truly recorded and reviewed on appeal, the review bodies would quickly be overwhelmed. The cost may be passed on to usage fees or advertising, and it is a heavy burden for countries without the needed systems and for small providers. Even with independent reviewers, depending on how they are appointed they could become a mere formality and a tool that gives approval to the limits. Moreover, many people would likely see a common format as something imposed from outside, based on the view that each society should decide for itself what counts as information touching national security.
Learn the background
Whether you can get to information depends not only on having a connection and a device, or being able to pay the fees, but also on whether someone is deliberately blocking the way. In many parts of the world, there have been repeated reports of the internet being shut off during elections and protests. On the large information platforms, huge numbers of posts are deleted every day, partly by automated systems. There are also disputes over the removal of library books, and the problem of research done with public funds being placed behind a paywall. There are certainly cases where a limit cannot be avoided, such as fraud or incitement to violence. But the big problem is that it is hard for outsiders even to see that a limit was imposed. If we do not know what was removed, we can neither debate whether it was right nor correct a mistake. Even if schools build the skill of judging information well, that skill cannot work fully without any clue about what is missing in the first place. What is needed is not a ban on all limits, but the idea of making the process of imposing limits open.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes