BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The internet allows political dissidents to communicate, organize, and grow a grassroots movement.

Another extremely important requirement for successful opposition movements advocating democratic reform is the ability to organize mass numbers of people. It is one thing if you hate your government, but don’t think anyone else does. It is entirely different if you can access the thoughts of thousands of others and realize that you are in fact not alone 1. Proportionally the number of people benefiting from repressive authoritative regimes is very small in comparison to the people who are suffering. Therefore, if the people who are hurt by the regimes realize the numbers that they have, it spells trouble for the governments. The internet has 2 billion users, and 950 million people have mobile broadband 2. Mobile phones with pay-as-you-go access plans are more available and affordable than ever before. Protesters do not need to own a computer: they can access social networking and news sites from their phones. The internet means that opposition groups don’t have to be organized under a particular leader, as there can now be many leaders and various causes that fit under the same umbrella and band together. These loose connections, as in Egypt, strengthen the movement 3.  The internet also reduces the cost of organization, which can be the difference between success and failure 4. In the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia which called for democracy, the internet was first used to create events on Facebook to increase the number of people aware of and attending protests 5. Then the videos, photographs, and twitter posts that became available on the internet increased the support for the movement as citizens became aware of the violence the government was subjecting the country to. The internet allows users to communicate, then organize demonstrations, and then grow the movement. All of these functions of the internet are essential factors of a grassroots push for democratic reforms. 1.  Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded, 2010, pp. 101-118 2.  Melanson, Donald, 'UN: worldwide internet users hit two billion, cellphone subscriptions top five billion', engadget, 28 January 2011  3.  BBC, "Egypt's opposition pushes demands as protests continue", 2011  4.  Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded: Digital Activism in Closed and Open Societies. 2010 5.  Alexander, Anne (2011), "Internet Role in Egypt Protests", British Broadcasting Company,
The internet enhances communication between countries.

The internet does not only make information available to oppressed people within a country, but also communicates that situation to the rest of the world. People also learn about other authoritarian—and democratic—governments around the world. For example, the internet allowed information about Tunisia’s revolution to reach Egypt, which made it clear that overthrowing a government was entirely possible1. Information about the actions of other countries, and their governments can lead to a push for democratic reforms around the world. In addition, as information flows out of a country it becomes more difficult for the globe’s powers to ignore the events that are ensuing, and makes it more likely that they will take action. This action can create the internal and external pressure necessary for democratic reform as was seen in both the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia2. Contact between countries can also have a more subtle impact as well. It enhances communication between open and closed societies particularly in the form of business, which can bring about an exchange of values. Thanks in part to the internet; Western firms increasingly own large shares of Middle Eastern and East Asian businesses, putting pressure on governments to remove their economic protectionism measures and to allow greater transparency. For example, while China is not a democracy it has made some government and economic reforms that are on the right track3. 1. Jerome, Deborah (2011), “Understand Tunisia’s Tremors”, Council on Foreign Relations, [Accessed June 22, 2011]. 2. Wikipedia, “International reactions to the revolution in Egypt”, [Accessed June 24, 2011]. 3. Wikipedia, “Chinese Economic Reforms”, [Accessed June 24, 2011]
The internet can be successfully censored so that it only promotes pro-regime propaganda.

The internet is said to promote democracy based on the claim that it leads to the free flow of information. Unfortunately, this is false in many parts of the world. 40 countries around the globe actively censor the internet, and 25 have blocked Google over the past few years1. This gives their governments a false legitimacy by removing material critical of anti-democratic policies and as acting as a psychological bulwark against discontent and dissent. The government retains the ability to control the information that its citizens have access to and can use this power to promote pro-regime information and prevent anti-regime, pro-democratic content from ever seeing the light of day. The internet is a new tool, but governments can become more sophisticated as well and harness the internet to repress dissent2. For example, China has almost no internet freedom and the terms “Tiananmen Square” and “Inner-Mongolia” provides no search results because protests occurred there3. Google in 2010 refused to uphold their firewalls and were therefore no longer allowed to operate in the country. The internet can be used by authoritarian government for enhanced media repression.  Even more concerning is corporate surveillance for marketing purposes, which means that people are pushed certain information from certain sources, meaning that not all voices are equally heard online.  Democracy in the online world is not about having your voice published, but about it being seen and heard. As a result some players can gain a lot more attention than other, even if everyone with access can publish. 1. Hernandez, Javier C., 'Google Calls for Action on Web Limits', The New York Times, 24 March 2010 2. Joyce, Mary (Editor). “Digital Activism Decoded: New Mechanics of Change”. International Debate Education Association, New York: 2010.  3. Shirong, Chen, "China Tightens Internet Censorship Controls", BBC, 2011
The digital divide leaves the same people in places of influence and power.

The internet doesn’t necessarily put power in the hands of the vulnerable; in many places it strengthens the influence of the traditional elite. In low-income countries the cost of broadband is 900% of average monthly income1. Most people simply cannot afford to have internet access. Internet penetration is not up to par in low income, developing, and traditionally non-democratic countries. For example, Africa has 15% of the world’s population and only 5% of its internet users. There are only about 100 million internet users on the continent, which accounts for only 11% of its population2. As the lower income members of society remain unable to afford internet access, the power that the internet boasts remains with those who can afford it. The traditional elites are the ones that maintain the ability to access the internet, and they can use it for their own purposes and to strengthen their position and power – i.e. the internet may actually increase inequalities on the ground, against democracy.  The internet could play a positive role in society, but until it is affordable, the oppressed who long for democracy will not have the tools to advocate for it. 1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded, 2010 2. Internet World Stats. “Internet Usage in Africa", 2011
Citizens often use the internet in ways that detract from democracy.

The idea that the internet promotes democracy also operates under the assumption that the people with internet access will use the tool for ‘good’. Yet, this is also not the case. The internet is the primary medium of coordination for Jihadist groups looking to undermine the few Middle-Eastern states which are in the process of transition to democracy. In April 2007, groups of hackers (allegedly backed by the Russian government) attacked the websites of key politicians, ministries and utilities in Estonia in retaliation for the removal of a Soviet war memorial. Hackers can block access, destroy content, and organize in malicious activity as in the case of terrorism and the Estonian ‘hactivists’ 1. Information can also be misused.In the US, neo-Nazism has always been an issue of contention and use the internet to further promote their viewpoints.For example, UK animal rights activists post information about people they feel to be targets, which can lead to intimidation. The internet can often be hijacked for less-than-ideal purposes and therefore does not directly promote democracy, but can be used by the people to counter reform 2. Moreover, there are questions over the limits on democratic freedoms due to the ‘corporate colonization’ o f the internet. For a start, a lot of the ‘trusted’ news sites that users frequent for their information simply reproduce the views of Western media corporations.  And corporate social network platforms like Facebook claim to provide for democratic interaction while undertaking surveillance of their user information so as to produce profiles to sell advertising, profiles that could also be used by governments. 1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded: The Double Edged Sword of Digital Tactics. 2010 2. Ibid
The internet can be used to quash democratic movements.

The internet makes it much easier for states to target and locate dissidents. They can be located by their IP addresses or records kept by internet cafes. It is almost impossible by today’s standards to remain anonymous on the internet1. Surveillance used to be the only technique for governments to track down dissidents, however the internet has made governments’ task of quashing opposition easier. Since 2003, 202 bloggers have been arrested around the world and 162 of the arrests were for political reasons. The government doesn’t need a true reason because only 37 of the cases were tried in the judicial system. Political parties, ethnic and religious groups, civil rights movements, and leaders can all be targeted through government internet surveillance2. When the government can find the names of political dissidents and arrest them, it makes it more difficult for successful movements to occur, because they lack leaders and potential participants are intimidated. The internet can also be used to reverse democratic momentum 1. Digital Activism Decoded: Digital Activism in Closed and Open Societies. 2. Digital Activism Decoded: New Casualties: Prisons and Persecution.
The internet promotes the free flow of information both in and out of a country, which is essential for a truly free democracy.

overnments still successfully censor information. Take China for example. Often the government shuts down Facebook and Twitter, arrests bloggers, and takes down content. Terms like ‘Tiananmen Square’ and ‘Inner Mongolia’ provide no search results because of the protests that have gone on there1 Governments’ ability to censor information is advancing. Therefore the idea that the internet promotes the flow of unbiased information is not necessarily true, which counters the claim that the internet promotes democracy. Further, the internet is not always used for access to Western news sources, but instead, over 500 million sites in the indexes of search engines are pornographic. In 2003 25% of internet use was for accessing porn. Five of the twenty most visited internet sites are download sites for video games and porn 2. The internet is not largely used for access to information, but instead other forbidden resources, and therefore cannot be directly linked to democratic development. 1. Shirong, Chen, "China Tightens Internet Censorship Controls", BBC, 2011  2. Change.org, "Petition to Unsubscribe America from Internet Porn", 2011,
The internet allows political dissidents to communicate, organize, and grow a grassroots movement.

The internet is only a place for coordination and cannot replace real-life action so if people are not willing to take to the streets, then the internet is not going to help—and even without the internet, disgruntled masses can still make their points known, as in the French Revolution1. Egypt shut down internet and phone service during part of the revolution, yet it continued indicating that this movement is not based online2. Therefore the internet is not necessarily the force that propels people towards change. SMS has been a very important part of the organization of these protests, which is entirely separate from the internet3. Close to 5 billion people use cell phones and SMS, therefore the impact of the cell phone cannot be distinguished from the internet so it is inaccurate to say that the internet is contributing to democratization when it is very possibly thanks to mobile phones4.   1.Wikipedia, French Revolution 2. BBC, “Egypt’s opposition pushes demands as protests continue”, 2011 3. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded: The Power of Mobile Phones, 2010 4. Melanson, David, “UN: worldwide internet users hit two billion, cellphone subscribers top five billion”, 2011.
The internet enhances communication between countries.

For many countries, communication with outside actors does not make any difference. Iran has some internet freedom and access to outside information, yet president Ahmadinejad casts the West as a great evil trying to destroy Iran's culture1 . The government remains a theocracy and while there have been some protests, there are many that still support the system of governance2 . Additionally, China may have made reforms, but it is not a democracy even though they have extensive contact with the West3 . Therefore, contact does not necessarily indicate that values will be adopted. When it comes to information flowing out of oppressive countries, the international community might make matters worse. When the West gets involved in local movements, often it can make leaders hold a tighter grip on their power, and turn the blame for the situation on the West leading to violence, and hindering democratic development. This is similar to the situation in Libya4. 1 CNN Wire Staff, 'The West is to blame for regional unrest, Ahmadinejad says', CNN Worl, 18 April 2011 2 Wolverson, Roya, 'How Iran Sees Egypt's Protests', Council on Foreign Relations, 10 February 2010  3 Kurlantzick, Joshua, 'Beijing has bought itself a respite from middle class revolt', The National, 7 March 2011  4 Zenko, Micah, 'Think Again: Libya', Foreign Policy, 28 April 2011  improve this
The internet can be successfully censored so that it only promotes pro-regime propaganda.

The quantity of information on the internet, and the number of talented computer users makes it very difficult for the government to fully censor information. The more information there is, the harder it becomes for the government to control it. The US is investing $19 million into researching how to break the firewalls of China and Iran1. There is plenty of easy to use software to evade firewalls2. Internet censorship can be evaded. Therefore, regimes cannot entirely maintain control over information, and any external information can be considered good information. Furthermore, regimes like China and Iran are not the only countries to “watching” their populations. Many democracies including the US and most of Western European use digital surveillance to safeguard their population- watch out for possible activity that may be harmful to the state. 1. Gaouette, Nicole, 'U.S. Launches New Effort to Evade China's Internet Firewalls', Bloomberg.com, 11 May 2011  2. Irish Times, 'Bunnies Hop the Great Firewall', 2 February 2011  improve this
The digital divide leaves the same people in places of influence and power.

There are ways to make the internet affordable. Internet cafes and purchasing multiple SIM cards and pay as you go plans for cell phones can address the need to have a computer and therefore decrease the cost of internet use1. Further, the internet is a jumping off point. Not every low-income person needs to have internet access but if a handful do, then they can be part of the organization of protests and movements by taking the information available online and disseminating it through networks of people through SMS, calls, and word of mouth. Tunisia was not a rich country; in fact, people were protesting the pervasive poverty. Even so, they were able to successfully organize a revolution, with the help of the internet2. 1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded: The Power of Mobile Phones, 2010 2. Jerome, Deborah, 'Understanding Tunisia's Tremors', Council on Foreign Relations, 14 January 2011 improve this
Citizens often use the internet in ways that detract from democracy.

With any tool there are going to be people who misuse it, yet cases of misuse do not outweigh times when the internet has proven to be an important force for democracy. Internet and SMS have helped to organize almost every uprising in the Middle East and the Orange Revolution in Georgia1. Cases of citizen misuse are few and far between in comparison to the change that has been made partially thanks to the internet. Further, the internet provides tools to successfully catch the abusers and prevent continued undemocratic actions through tracking IP addresses and other tactics. The same goes for targeting terrorist networks. 1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded: Digital Activism in Closed and Open Societies. 2010
Immoral to own a human life

We are happy to put a price on our ideas and knowledge, which are as much building blocks of life as our genes. Each individual already sells his ideas and has a price tag so patenting makes no further devaluation than that which is already there.Even if ownership of another person’s parts is immoral, morality never had a lot to do with gene patenting.Patent agencies allow such immoral things as poisons, explosives, extremely dangerous chemical substances, devices used in nuclear power stations, agro-chemicals, pesticides and many other things which can threaten human life or damage the environment to be patented. This is despite the existence of the public order and morality bar in almost all European countries.1So why make a difference with gene patenting, which does not harm, but may actually benefit a great amount of people.    1. Annabelle Lever , Is It Ethical To Patent Human Genes?, UCL 2008,
A liability regime not patents.

There are alternatives to the kind of blanket patenting that stifles innovation and drives up prices . The most obvious is to have no patents at all for genes which would result in a free for all but might have the result the proposition argues it would, that without any kind of pay back for the research no one will do the research in the first place. However there are alternatives that prevent many of the problems of patents while still bringing in many of the benefits . This would be to have some kind of rights for the discover. Unlike patents there would be no right to refuse or provide conditions for access to the discovery. This would be a use now pay later system. Anyone could research using the discovery or seek to commercialize it but would have to pay a fee which would depend upon what the application was1. Palombi has proposed the creation of ‘Genetic Sequence Rights’ “the GSR would be administered using… the present ‘international’ patent system so as to minimize establishment costs and to facilitate its adoption.  A GSR would be granted to the first person to file and disclose a genetic sequence defining genetic material of any origin and explaining its function and utility… The GSR would become part of an international electronic database which would be freely accessible by any person. Upon registration the GSR holder would have the right to a GSR use fee (GSR fee).  The GSR fee would vary depending on the nature of the use.  For publicly funded institutions such as universities, experimental use would not attract a GSR fee, but for commercial entities, the GSR fee would apply commensurately with the nature of the use2.” This would therefore create a much fairer system that both encourages research for commercial purposes and for academic purposes. 1. Dutfield G., DNA patenting: implications for public health research, WHO  http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/5/388.pdf 2. Palombi, Luigi, “The Genetic Sequence Right: A Sui Generis Alternative to the Patenting of Biological Materials”, Patenting Lives Conference, 1-2 December 2005, p.18. http://cgkd.anu.edu.au/menus/PDFs/GeneticSequenceRightPaper.pdf,
Genes are intellectual property thus patentable

The patenting office stipulates that a successful patent applicant must have found something in nature, isolated it, and found a way to make something useful with it.The genome research of companies satisfies these criteria, so why should it be any different? The genome companies have invested resources to create intellectual property (patents), which refers to “creations of the mind.” Under US law includes intellectual property inventions, literary and artistic works, symbols, names, images, designs, and trade secrets. The law states, that any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent.” In biomedicine the patentable inventions include materials, such as new drugs or new cell lines, and methods for deriving or growing them, such as extraction or cloning techniques.1 1. Merz J., Mildred K., What are gene patents and Why are people worried about them ?, Community Genetics 2005
Patenting enables knowledge sharing

Patents are typically granted for twenty years only. After this period the monopoly ends. All companies ask is that for a limited time they are able to benefit from their investments, and that in that period if another company wishes to pursue a project in their area then they should have to give their permission for the use of the patent. Patenting does not mean withholding information in secrecy. On the contrary, patents actively encourage openness in science, because if you were not able to disclose your findings without fear of exploitation, then you would keep your findings secret. This would be to the detriment of medical advancement. For example the Human Genome Sciences’ patented their discovery of the CCR5 receptor gene, which was then discovered by other scientists at the National Institutes of Health, that the small number of people missing the receptor appear to be immune to HIV 1. This could be done because Human Genome Sciences has a policy that  "we do not use our patents to prevent anyone in academics or the nonprofit world from using these materials for whatever they want, so long as it is not commercial.2" Patenting makes sure that the information is registered and shared. The other option, whereby companies do not patent the information and keep it as a “trade secret”, hurts everybody much more and slows down the rate of scientific progress. 1. Dutfield G., DNA patenting: implications for public health research, WHO  2. Chartrand, Sabra, "Human Gene Patented as Potential Fighter Against AIDS" The New York Times, 6 March 2000,