Whether pre- or post Internet. There are always activities and decisions on the part of governments that interfere with the press and free speech. This will not change and in such huge civilizations as we have today, everything a government does is fed into pro and contra debate by sections of the population.

It is only as good as impossible to keep personal opinions out of the public sphere, because the Internet is a very badly regulable space. Turning it off is probably only possible in countries like India, where, I conclude, the economic and social damage it causes is believed by decision-makers to be able to be dealt with. But it is rather a self-boycott of the rulers, which is psychologically interesting, because if you previously thought that there could be unrest in the population and you could prevent it by shutting down the networks, you will get exactly what you feared afterwards. Anyone who has not been interested in network policy in India so far will do so now at the latest and take action. There has already been a ruling by the Supreme Court in India, which has included the right to privacy in the law at all, as this right was not previously laid down.

The irony is that, if there had been no network shutdown to this extent, who knows if and when a law of this kind would have been introduced? It is a fact that countries such as India do not yet have the standard of European customs, for example. Whether a country opens itself to democratic principles is never entirely certain, but the economic drivers are so great, trade and mobility so global, that a country will sooner or later be unable to afford to shut down its network unless it wants to go under in competition.

Here in Germany, for example, the government is also expected to influence movements such as those of the Nazis or the very right-wing or left-wing scene. It is a tightrope walk between censorship and freedom and it will never be easy. We Germans know how sensitive the issue of freedom of expression is, but freedom is never one hundred percent and it can be a short way between ban and criticism as well as between free speech and riot.

Ultimately, it is self-censorship and what I carry into the world as someone who expresses his views. I think I say as much as necessary and as little as possible to generate excitement. Rather, I always have to ask myself: If I want to have an open debate, then I should accept opinions that do not correspond to my own. The fact that some governments believe that their own citizens are not capable of self-censorship is certainly true. It is to be hoped that, over time, both the government and the people will learn from their mistakes and good practices.