Internet censorship, by definition, “is the control or suppression of the publication of or access to information on the Internet,” according to Christopher Leberknight et al. in the article “A Taxonomy of Internet Censorship and Anti-Censorship” (2010). The idea of ​​not being able to use the Internet freely may seem strange to those who live in a country where the Internet is free. We live in a country where we have access to all kinds of information and news just by searching for the desired topic. However, in some countries, people do not have full and free access to the Internet. Internet content is typically blocked, censored, or manipulated by that state's local government. Some governments, mainly non-democratic regimes, believe that a free Internet will expose their citizens to topics and information that will threaten their power and politics in general. These threats can range from government elections to protests. Countries like Iran, China, Russia, etc. are part of these countries. These governments fear that free Internet will not raise awareness among citizens. And when awareness increases, so will the number of people who question government policy and strategy. The Internet and more particularly social networks can reach a large audience in a short time. This also allows anti-diet ads to spread easier and faster. This is exactly why undemocratic governments censor the internet. Unfortunately, this problem is becoming more and more prevalent as we move forward. According to Sanja Kelly et al., in the article “Silencing the Messenger: Communication Apps Under Pressure,” Internet freedom has declined over the past six years. Today, more and more governments are targeting social media and communications apps to stop the rapid spread of information. In recent years, “Facebook and Twitter have been subject to increasing censorship for several years,” says Kelly. However, governments are now attacking Telegram and WhatsApp, which are voice communication and messaging applications. These apps have a high level of security and end-to-end encryption that does not make it easy for governments to track messages, even if the records are necessary for law enforcement and national security. Therefore, some governments block these applications within their country. The issue of internet censorship needs to be addressed because we live in a time where more people have access to the internet than toilets. Yet, on the contrary, two-thirds, or 67 percent, of these people live in countries where Internet data is censored (Kelly et al. 2016). It is essential to ensure that the content people are exposed to is not manipulated and is truthful. This article will analyze the pros and cons of internet censorship in unfree countries, while primarily focusing on Iran. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Historically, the Internet has been censored to support political and religious goals. As Leberknight et al. indicate, the frequency of censorship increased in the 15th century when printing became widespread. The printing press disseminated information and news more widely and was much more difficult to control. This also helped in the preservation of the books. Then radio and television broadcasts were able to boost the speed of communication, making itbetter or faster means in terms of disseminating information. However, the Internet allows information to be disseminated more quickly than previous means. Another problem governments face is maintaining information on the Internet within their borders. The border of the Internet is permeable, as Leberknight states. So even if content on a website is blocked, it can be accessed on a website outside the country. Today, governments must be innovative in their censorship methods as more and more networks and devices change rapidly. According to Leberknight, another reason why online information cannot be controlled is that the goal of this innovation was to make information accessible to the majority of people. As mentioned earlier, the distribution and access to the Internet is very widespread. The inability to control the product of rapid information sharing and the difficulty of exploiting it will pose a threat to authoritarian regimes. Regimes like Russia, China and the totalitarian government of Iran. The increased control over content accessible on the Internet only proves that social media and online communication have a significant effect on the advancement of political freedom, social justice, and general knowledge in general (Kelly et al. 2016) . There are several censorship criteria. The criteria, as Leberknight et al. assert, include cost, scope, scale, speed, granularity, false negatives, false positives and circumvavility (2010). Opportunity and resource costs determine the availability of censorship. Reach refers to the number of means of communication censored. The number of people affected during this process constitutes a scale. Granularity refers to different servers, ports, web pages, etc. False negative terms determine the accuracy of the censoring process. False positives refer to the exhaustion of censoring resources if they are too high. And finally, circumvavility makes censorship incapacitating. In addition to these criteria, these governments use different techniques to filter information on the Web. These techniques include attack mode, filter mode, and target (Leberknight et al. 2010). Each of these methods is designed to filter Internet content in a unique way. IP filtering is the most common means of censorship. This method has its drawbacks since many websites are hosted on a single IP address, blocking this address would block websites that do not even have censorable content (Leberknight et al. 2010). China has the most advanced technology and censorship network and is the only country to use all three methods (Leberknight et al. 2010). This allows China to strictly control information on the Internet. In addition to strict censorship, China has smart cities that allow the government to control citizens' activities even more. While some countries rely solely on internet censorship, other countries have even decided to go further and shut down all internet access during a political crisis, purely to prevent users from sharing current events with the world. In these countries, users who tend to post political content are arrested. According to Kelly et al., 27% of people with access to the Internet live in these countries. Many argue that censorship threatens free speech and privacy. Countries are currently censoring more diverse content. Although media outlets that disseminate political views opposed to those of the local establishment are the center of attention, questions regardingLGBTI community and anti-religious materials are also censored. These measures are all taken with the aim of strengthening national security, preventing people from being exposed to fake news and Western culture. On the contrary, the measures taken by these governments diminish freedom of expression and democracy. Unfortunately, a number of governments, both democratic and non-democratic, have passed laws that allow them to exercise greater surveillance over their citizens and limit their privacy. Although it is difficult to oppose the government, especially in some countries, citizens should not underestimate the power of the Internet. The Internet can be used as a powerful voice to speak out to the world, fight for human rights and demand better government. People living in these restrictive countries were able to achieve something unprecedented that was not possible before. Online activism has exposed corruption, embezzlement and contributed to political freedom of prisoners and even saved many of them from execution. So, over time, we can see more tangible results from Internet activity in non-free countries. Although the experience is different depending on the country one lives in, in order to demonstrate in more detail how to use the Internet in a non-free country. In detail, this article will focus on Iran mainly because I was born and raised in Iran. I am aware of the past and current situation, while witnessing it myself. I think this experience would allow me to better explain what it means to use the Internet in a non-free country. Iran has a long history of censorship, particularly after the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Iranian leaders believe social media is a Western conspiracy. Yet, ironically, all Iranian government officials, including the Supreme Leader, have personal social media accounts. As BBC writer Nasim Hatam points out, this is a downside of internet filtering that removes checks against the government. The Internet and social media are closely monitored in Iran. Iran is among the countries that use IP filtering to block access to certain social media platforms and websites. Iranian citizens have already found different ways to bypass filtering and have somehow found a backdoor to access websites of their choice using VPNs and internet proxies. But of course, the Iranian regime is aware of this trick and goes after any popular VPN and disables it. Ordinary citizens should then look for new ones. Some platforms like Facebook, Viber and Telegram are filtered daily. However, the government will also completely shut down the Internet if certain political incidents occur or are about to occur. Eleven years ago, after the 2009 presidential election, millions of Iranians took to the streets to question the validity of the election. The government manipulated the election results, which caused a lot of anger, leading to a massive protest that the Islamic Republic had not seen since the 1979 revolution, says Omid Memarian, author of "The Green Movement from Iran has never gone away” (2019). Many protesters were arrested and many were killed during the marches. The internet and social media are the reason the world knows about this movement and what happened to the Iranian people. As noted in the article “The Role of Social Media in the Green Movement in Iran” written by Somayeh Moghanizadeh, shortly after the protest began,.