RAPID: World Wide Access to COVID-19 Information

应对世界性危机，如当前的新冠肺炎大流行，需要不同群体(政府、科学家、医疗保健提供者、普通人)进行广泛沟通。互联网确实提供了一种有效的沟通手段，但谣言、未经证实的理论或直接的宣传也会在互联网上向广泛的受众传播，并有可能造成重大伤害。人们很容易得出结论，在危机时期，有必要对互联网实施强有力的控制，以限制不满情绪的传播。另一方面，更自由的信息流动也是有益的。它可以在发生这种危机时迅速而微妙地部署资源，满足关键需求。因此，开放的信息控制政策还是严格的信息控制政策在大流行情况下效果更好，这是一个悬而未决的问题。在这个项目中，研究人员研究了几个国家的互联网审查政策-从那些实施非常严格控制的国家(如中国、俄罗斯)、温和的(如韩国、印度)到非常开放的(如美国、德国、日本)-并描述在疫情期间他们如何控制信息的获取，特别是与新冠肺炎相关的信息访问。这项研究将有助于确定互联网通信的最佳做法，从而有助于保护国民健康。这项研究从多个国家的有利位置收集了有关对互联网上新冠肺炎相关信息的读写权限的数据。选定的国家与互联网连接良好，地理位置不同，对互联网审查的方法也不同：一些严格的审查人员，一些半自由的国家，以及一些以言论自由著称的国家(如自由之家的互联网自由研究报告所述)。此外，由于访问控制在一个国家内可能有所不同，因此使用了多个有利位置--理想情况下，每个主要位置的“客户锥体”中都有一个，例如在该国。从这些有利的角度，每月检查四个指标：(1)用户是否可以访问约翰·霍普金斯大学系统科学与工程中心冠状病毒仪表板、疾病控制和预防中心、世界卫生组织以及同行评议的期刊如《科学》、《自然》、《新英格兰医学杂志》等认为权威的来源。(2)用户是否可以访问非权威来源，如被识别为传播错误信息的网站(由跟踪社交网络的研究人员识别)。(3)用户可以访问哪些社交媒体网站，以及这些网站是否已被审查(例如，A国的用户可以访问Twitter、Facebook等，还是只能访问像QQ这样的本地网站？这些站点是否经过严格过滤？)(4)如果用户发送带有手动构建的触发器短语的HTTP查询(例如，“CoronaVirus bioweapon”)，该查询是否被阻止？本研究收集的数据与疫情影响的可信衡量标准(到达高峰的时间和死亡率)相关，有助于确定与成功遏制新冠肺炎疫情并从疫情中恢复相关的互联网控制战略。该奖项反映了美国国家科学基金会的法定使命，并已通过使用基金会的智力优势和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

Response to a worldwide crisis, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic, requires extensive communication involving different groups (governments, scientists, healthcare providers, common people). The Internet does provide an effective means of communication – but rumor, non-validated theories or outright propaganda also propagate to wide audiences over the Internet, and have the potential to cause significant harm. It is tempting to conclude that strong Internet controls are necessary in times of crisis to limit the spread of malcontent. On the other hand, more free flow of information is also beneficial. It can enable rapid yet nuanced deployment of resources to critical needs in times of such a crisis. It is therefore an open question whether open or strict information control policies work better in a pandemic situation. In this project, researchers study Internet censorship policies in several countries – ranging from those employ very strict controls (e.g. China, Russia) through moderate (e.g. South Korea, India) to very open (e.g. USA, Germany, Japan) – and characterize how they control access to information, specifically related to COVID-19, during the course of the pandemic. This study would help decide best practice in Internet communications and thereby help to protect national health. This study collects data regarding read and write access to COVID-19 related information on the Internet, from vantage points in a range of countries. Chosen countries are well-connected to the Internet, geographically diverse, and different in their approaches to Internet censorship: some strict censors, some semi-free, and some known for free speech (as reported in the Internet Freedom Study, by Freedom House). Further, as access controls may vary within a country, multiple vantage points are used – ideally, one in the "customer cone" of each major AS in the country. From these vantage points, four measures are checked twice a month: (1) Whether users can access sources considered authoritative by the Johns Hopkins University's Center for Systems Science and Engineering Coronavirus Dashboard, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, NEJM etc. (2) Whether users can access non-authoritative sources, such as websites identified as spreading misinformation (identified by researchers following social networks). (3) What social media sites users can access, and whether these are known to be censored (e.g. can users in country A reach Twitter, Facebook etc., or only local sites like qq? Are these sites strictly filtered?) (4) If a user sends an HTTP query with a manually-constructed trigger phrase (say, "coronavirus bioweapon"), is the query blocked? The data collected in this study is correlated against trusted measures of pandemic impact (time-to-peak and mortality), and can help identify the Internet control strategies associated with success in containing and recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.