According to Surfshark’s 2024 report on internet censorship , internet shutdowns have become a central tactic of authoritarian control over the last decade. In the past ten years, there have been over 650 documented disruptions across Asia, affecting more than 4.3 billion people—approximately 91% of the continent’s population.
India and its administered region of Jammu and Kashmir account for over 72% of all shutdowns in Asia. These blackouts were overwhelmingly linked to political events: 226 were tied to protests, 34 to elections, and 377 to broader political turmoil. Meanwhile, 66% of Asian countries have experienced at least one shutdown since 2015.
Africa is the second most affected region, with 134 shutdowns in the same period. These events impacted 83.6% of the continent’s population—over 1.2 billion people. The majority of disruptions were also connected to protests, elections, or political instability. Ethiopia and Sudan remain among the worst offenders.
Internet Shutdowns undermine trust in institutions, cripple economic activity, and stifle the development of democratic culture.
While Europe has witnessed relatively fewer shutdowns (only 17 cases), Russia and Belarus together account for nearly 90% of these. In contrast, North America has registered 11 cases—nine of them in Cuba alone, which represents 73% of the region’s total disruptions. South America, though often overlooked in digital repression discourse, has documented 45 cases since 2015, with 60% of the continent’s population affected. Oceania remains the only region with no recorded shutdowns.
This geographic breakdown confirms a broader trend: internet blackouts are rarely isolated measures—they are deliberate, targeted acts of political suppression. Despite their growing prevalence, shutdowns receive limited media attention. Too often they are interpreted as technical issues or temporary security measures, rather than as what they are: a strategy of authoritarian governance in the digital age.
Internet Shutdowns: A Method of Control, Not a Response to Chaos
Internet shutdowns are typically framed by governments as temporary measures to ensure “public safety,” prevent “the spread of misinformation,” or “curb violence.” In practice, however, they function as tools of censorship and social control. By disabling access to social media, messaging platforms, or even entire mobile networks, authorities disrupt the ability of citizens to organize protests, document abuses, or communicate with the outside world.
This strategy is especially effective during moments of political unrest. Internet shutdowns are not only disruptive—they are strategic tools that allow regimes to interrupt coordination, dismantle solidarity, and control narratives. By severing digital communication, regimes isolate dissidents, fragment collective action, and reduce international visibility of state violence. In this sense, the shutdown is not a response to disorder—it is a calculated move to prevent accountability.
From Tehran to Cuba: Case Studies in Digital Repression
The most prominent examples in recent years illustrate how widespread and diverse these tactics have become.
- Iran: During the 2022–2023 protests following the death of Mahsa Amini in police custody, the Iranian government implemented extensive mobile and internet blackouts. These were not limited to moments of peak unrest but persisted intermittently over several months. The shutdowns coincided with violent crackdowns on demonstrators, restricting access to platforms like WhatsApp and Instagram, and making it nearly impossible for citizens to share videos of the protests or police brutality.
- Myanmar: After the military coup in February 2021, the junta imposed nationwide internet blackouts as part of its broader campaign to silence opposition. Initially, mobile networks were cut for hours at a time; soon after, entire regions faced indefinite disconnections. These shutdowns coincided with mass arrests, the killing of protesters, and systematic efforts to destroy digital evidence of repression.
- India: The Indian government has repeatedly used localized internet shutdowns, especially in Jammu and Kashmir, which saw nearly 400 shutdowns between 2012 and 2022. In 2019, following the revocation of Kashmir’s special status, the region experienced a complete communication blackout that lasted 213 days—the longest democratic shutdown recorded to date. These measures blocked not only dissent but also routine communication, education, and healthcare services.
- Cuba: In July 2021, as spontaneous anti-government protests erupted across the country, authorities responded by cutting off mobile internet access. Messaging platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram, and Signal became inaccessible, and the state-run ETECSA blocked data services for hours at a time. The government also aimed to prevent the dissemination of videos and images of its brutal repression. As independent journalists and citizens tried to document the protests, the blackout ensured that few images and testimonies reached international audiences in real time.
Beyond the Blackout: Long-Term Impacts on Civil Society
The consequences of internet shutdowns go far beyond immediate disruption. They undermine trust in institutions, cripple economic activity, and stifle the development of democratic culture. In regions where internet shutdowns are frequent, activists must constantly adapt to unstable communication channels, while journalists face growing difficulties in verifying and reporting events.
Moreover, these shutdowns disproportionately affect marginalized populations. Those without access to VPNs, satellite tools, or foreign media support are left voiceless. Education, small businesses, and emergency services all suffer collateral damage. A blackout is never “surgical”—its effects are structural.
A Legal Grey Zone That Enables Abuse
One of the most alarming aspects of internet shutdowns is their legal ambiguity. Many governments invoke vague national security laws or colonial-era regulations to justify disconnections. Judicial oversight is rare, and international mechanisms for accountability remain limited. Even when shutdowns are challenged in court—as in the Indian Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling that indefinite shutdowns are unconstitutional—states often find ways to circumvent or ignore these rulings in practice.
This legal vacuum encourages authoritarian governments and emboldens semi-authoritarian democracies to adopt similar tactics. Without robust international pressure or coordinated sanctions, the cost of digital repression remains low.
The Role of Tech Companies and International Actors
Major technology companies often operate infrastructure in countries with high shutdown risk. Yet their responses are inconsistent. In some cases, providers comply quietly with internet shutdown orders; in others, they resist or delay enforcement.
Read More
Civil society groups have called for greater transparency from both telecoms and platforms, demanding that they publish all government requests and outline when and why services are disrupted.
International organizations, meanwhile, have limited tools to address this trend. Despite repeated condemnations, including from the United Nations, concrete enforcement mechanisms remain weak. Internet shutdowns continue to expand in part because the political cost of deploying them remains minimal.
Internet Shutdowns and the Future of Digital Rights
Internet shutdowns are no longer the exception—they are a defining feature of modern authoritarianism. The rapid expansion of internet shutdowns reflects a growing alignment between technological control and political repression. As digital infrastructure becomes central to civic engagement and information flows, regimes gain new means to monitor, isolate, and silence dissent.
The vulnerability of civil society grows in direct proportion to the centrality of digital networks in public life. Recognizing shutdowns as deliberate acts of repression—rather than neutral “security measures”—is essential.
The time for isolated outrage has passed. What is needed is a coordinated effort to document, expose, and penalize these shutdowns, ensuring that connectivity is treated not as a luxury, but as a right.
Further Reading
