nrc.nl
Afghanistan: Taliban Impose Internet Shutdown, Raising Concerns
The Taliban regime in Afghanistan has begun implementing an internet shutdown in multiple provinces, impacting communication and daily life for citizens, journalists, and businesses.
- What are the immediate impacts of the internet shutdown in Afghanistan?
- The internet shutdown in several Afghan provinces has severely hampered communication, affecting citizens, journalists, and businesses that rely on online platforms. The shutdown also impacts online education and access to information. This action has caused widespread panic and fear among the population.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of this internet ban, and what are the underlying causes?
- The long-term consequences could be devastating, leading to further isolation, economic stagnation, and hindering access to vital information and services. The underlying cause is the Taliban's desire to control information and suppress dissent, prioritizing ideological goals over the needs of the population. The Taliban's decision to completely shut down the internet, rather than focusing on content filtering, is viewed as short-sighted and counterproductive.
- How is this internet shutdown affecting various sectors in Afghanistan, and what are the broader implications?
- The shutdown significantly impacts businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises that rely on online transactions. Government operations are also hampered, and access to information and education is severely restricted. This action throws the country back two decades, reversing progress made in digital connectivity.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a balanced view by including perspectives from various sources such as a journalist in Kabul, Afghan citizens, and an Afghan writer in Germany. However, the framing emphasizes the negative consequences of the internet shutdown, potentially downplaying any potential justifications the Taliban might have for their actions. The headline itself focuses on the disruption and anxiety caused by the shutdown, setting a concerned tone.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and factual, reporting on events and quotes without overt bias. However, terms like "paniekerig" (panicked) in the second sentence might be considered slightly loaded, implying a certain level of irrationality in the response to the shutdown. The use of quotes from concerned individuals also lends a negative emotional tone to the piece. Alternatives could be 'quickly' or 'urgently'.
Bias by Omission
The article could benefit from including perspectives from the Taliban leadership to understand their reasoning behind the internet shutdown and the potential positive outcomes they envision. While practical constraints and safety concerns for journalists reporting from within Afghanistan are acknowledged, including a counterpoint from the Taliban (even if sourced indirectly) would create a more well-rounded picture. The article also does not thoroughly address the technical aspects of how the internet shutdown is being implemented.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't present a false dichotomy explicitly. However, it implicitly positions the internet shutdown as an all-or-nothing proposition, contrasting the total shutdown with the possibility of targeted filtering. The complexity of implementing and managing targeted internet filtering in a country like Afghanistan is not fully explored.
Gender Bias
The article features both male and female voices, but mostly focuses on the impact on men, with the female voice largely limited to the exiled writer 'Marie'. While this may reflect the reality of limited access for women in Afghanistan, more diverse perspectives from Afghan women on the ground would enhance the reporting.
Sustainable Development Goals
The internet shutdown in Afghanistan severely impacts access to online education, particularly for girls who were already banned from attending school. The article mentions that many girls were attending online classes, and this shutdown will eliminate that opportunity, hindering their education and future prospects. This directly contradicts SDG 4: Quality Education, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.