Forum and blog platform operators in the censored country were systematically coerced into serving as first-line censorship enforcers: they monitored user comments, warned users that Internet anonymity did not exist, gave users chances to self-remove offending posts, and ultimately handed user identifying information to government agencies when users did not comply. Larger forums hired full-time moderators operating 24 hours a day to manage this compliance workload.

Some politically active bloggers in the studied country deliberately continued publishing on officially court-blocked platforms, reasoning that official blockage created a legal defense against persecution: 'if they say you wrote this on your blog, I will say all of these blogs are blocked according to this court decision—they don't exist and they are officially inaccessible to citizens.' This co-option of censor infrastructure as a shield was treated as a serious protective strategy.

§Blocked sites as a form of protection defense

A politically active blogger in an anonymized censored country explicitly avoided BlackBerry encryption stating: 'they can't crack that encryption and they would just get suspicious. Cause they listen to me and listen to me and then suddenly I am encrypting and so that means I am really saying something they don't want me to.' This documents censor behavior where the mere use of strong encryption—independent of content—serves as a targeting signal.

§Blocked sites as a form of protection policy

Blocking in the studied country was erratic and inconsistent: some geographic areas accessed the Internet through channels outside the main government-controlled pipeline and experienced no blocking, while other areas experienced sudden unexplained block-and-unblock cycles (e.g., a video sharing site and a microblogging site were blocked for 2-3 days in 2010 and then unblocked without explanation). Users frequently could not distinguish between deliberate blocking and ordinary technical outages, and this ambiguity itself amplified self-censorship among users who had not been directly targeted.

§Blocking as an Abstract Concept / National Internet space policy

Users lacking technical circumvention skills bypassed blocking via social relays: technically savvy friends or contacts in unblocked regions copied blocked content into email or reposted it on social network profiles, allowing censored information to reach users who had no direct access to proxies or anonymizers. This informal bypass required no circumvention software on the recipient's end.

§Reliance on social ties policy

During the June 2025 shutdown, Iranian authorities blocked international One-Time Password (OTP) SMS delivery, preventing new sign-ins to foreign secure-messaging platforms and VPN services. This forced users toward government-approved domestic platforms that lack security and privacy protections. The blockade of OTPs effectively weaponized account-recovery flows as a secondary shutdown layer, disproportionately affecting users who needed to activate new circumvention tools during the crisis.

2025-iran-shutdown-measurement §Human Rights Implications port-blockingdpikeyword-filtering

Simple character-level perturbations (English) and homophone substitutions (Chinese), combined with LLM instruction-following prompts directing the model to use word substitutions in its output, successfully bypassed all input and output filters for all 41 input-blocked and 197 output-blocked queries across five major Chinese LLM services (Baidu-Chat, DeepSeek, Doubao, Kimi, Qwen). Every input-blocked query contained at least one keyword combination that alone triggered the filter, confirming keyword-matching rather than semantic classification.

2026-ablove-characterizing §VII-D keyword-filtering

Cross-national experiments conducted from Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan during February 19–24, 2025 found no variance in blocking implementations, event syntax, or server infrastructure across all five Chinese LLM services. Input blocking was enacted identically in all three international locations, and services connected to the exact same server IP addresses globally — Kimi and Baidu-Chat connected to identical IPs and DeepSeek to the same two addresses across all tested locations.

2026-ablove-characterizing §VIII-A keyword-filtering

Input blocking in Chinese LLM services (DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, Doubao) is overwhelmingly consistent: all four services persistently block the exact same queries across all 5 measurement samples in both Simplified and Traditional Chinese. Output blocking is far less consistent, with only 29 out of 349 output-blocked queries blocked across all 5 samples. Baidu-Chat is exceptional: it performs almost no input blocking but instead relies heavily on post-search and output blocking (78.6% of blocks are output-phase).

2026-ablove-characterizing §VI-B keyword-filteringdpi

DeepSeek, Kimi, and Doubao all transmit analytics logs to the same Autonomous System (AS24429, Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd., a ByteDance/Volcengine subsidiary), with one monitoring endpoint IP directly overlapping between DeepSeek and Doubao. Additionally, all four non-Qwen services maintain connections with servers physically located in China throughout the chat session, transmitting user IDs, session IDs, viewport data, language preferences, and in Baidu-Chat's case, the full query text via URL-encoded CAPTCHA requests.

2026-ablove-characterizing §VI-D keyword-filtering

All five Chinese LLM services transmit partial or complete responses to the client machine even when output blocking is triggered, representing a major information leak. For DeepSeek and Qwen, truncated blocked responses are on average close in token length to full successful responses. For Baidu-Chat, the complete response is transmitted to the client but only partially rendered in the browser UI, with only a word or two visible on screen.

2026-ablove-characterizing §VI-C keyword-filtering