How dictators help each other control the internet

The internet can boost the economy by helping businesses grow, speeding up communication, and making government services more efficient. That’s why many authoritarian regimes want to expand it. But the internet also gives people more freedom to connect, share ideas, and organize protests – which can be a threat to those in power. This creates a dilemma for autocrats: how to modernize without losing control? 

The Authoritarian Digital Dilemma  

In their study “Authoritarian collaboration and repression in the digital age: balancing foreign direct investment and control in internet infrastructure”, Prof. Dr. Tina Freyburg and her co-authors show that authoritarian regimes solve this dilemma through strategic collaboration with other autocracies. They find that foreign direct investment (FDI) in internet service provision tends to come from other authoritarian countries.  

In particular, when a government represses its people, other similar authoritarian countries are more likely to invest in that country’s internet infrastructure. These investors share similar goals – they both want technology to expand and want to make sure that they can use the technology in a way that allows them to remain in power and control their people. 

This kind of investment is thus not neutral but promises a double benefit for the receiving regimes. It allows them to expand digital infrastructure while keeping control over it. In particular, when an internet provider is majority-owned by an authoritarian investor, it becomes much easier for the host regime to monitor, censor, and control online activity. As Freyburg puts it: “Authoritarian collaboration is not a coincidence. It reflects strategic interests: regimes invest in digitalization – but only in ways that preserve control and enable repression.” 

Digital Infrastructure as a Lever for Repression 

The study is part of a multi-year research project on the political implications of internet expansion in autocracies, conducted at the Institute of Political Science (IPW-HSG) at the University of St.Gallen. It focuses on the interplay between investor origin, ownership structures of internet providers, and state repression. The findings are clear: in countries where foreign authoritarian investors are involved, the internet is significantly more often used to suppress opposition and manipulate the digital flow of information. 

Further research by Prof. Freyburg and her team shows how internet shutdowns are used deliberately – for example, in the Central African Republic or Ethiopia, especially during elections or protests. This global pattern is also evident in Russia, where communication channels are increasingly restricted or manipulated. As Ulrich Schmid, Professor of Russian Culture and Society at the University of St.Gallen, notes oped for NZZ: "A modern equivalent of Soviet jamming is the blocking of foreign websites such as Facebook and Instagram. In the meantime, YouTube has also been artificially slowed down in Russia to such an extent that it is hardly accessible anymore. The postmodern stabilization of the Putin system is now overlaid by an intrusive patriotism in which, absurdly, the Latin letters Z and V take on the iconic function of the hammer and sickle." 

Global Responsibility and Technological Complicity 

Prof. Freyburg’s study highlights the urgent need to strengthen mechanisms that protect freedom of information online. In an increasingly interconnected world, unhindered access to information is a fundamental requirement for functioning democracies and for citizens’ political self-determination. 

At the same time, the research raises pressing questions about the responsibility of international tech companies. Many of these firms play a key role in expanding digital infrastructure in emerging economies. But what happens when their economic engagement coincides with political repression? The study makes one thing clear: when authoritarian regimes collaborate with investors who do not hinder repression – or even enable it – a dangerous alliance is formed. This type of authoritarian collaboration is subtle, transnational, and technically complex – but politically powerful.  

To the study

Image: Adobe Stock / Christian