Should Sri Lanka Build a Great Firewall?
In recent years, conversations about digital censorship and national internet regulation have gained significant traction around the globe. From democratic countries enacting laws to fight disinformation to authoritarian regimes creating massive digital firewalls, this global dialogue is no longer just theoretical—it’s increasingly practical, political, and urgent. In this shifting landscape, Sri Lanka finds itself standing at a similar crossroads. Following a history of online-fueled unrest, communal tensions, and cyber vulnerabilities, the idea of implementing a national firewall has emerged, at least in whispers [source: AP News]. It sounds like a solution, a digital safeguard in an age of increasing threats—but what would it truly mean for a country like ours? Is such a move necessary, or even wise? As digital threats evolve, so must our responses also—but the shape those responses take matters just as much as the intent behind them. That’s where this discussion begins.
Note: In Sri Lanka, we have also faced digital censorship on multiple occasions. Specifically, in March 2018, April 2019, May 2019, and April 2022.
The internet in Sri Lanka is not just a luxury or an optional tool—it is deeply woven into the everyday fabric of life for millions. People use it to communicate with family abroad, run small businesses, freelance globally, educate their children, and advocate for justice. Any move to regulate it at the national level, especially through a sweeping mechanism like a Great Firewall, demands a serious and balanced conversation. The core question isn’t whether online spaces can be harmful—they clearly can—but whether the remedy should involve limiting access to information for all, based on the actions of a few. We must evaluate such proposals not just in terms of security, but in terms of liberty, progress, and inclusivity. This blog post explores what a Great Firewall really is, weighs the pros and cons of introducing one in Sri Lanka, and ultimately argues for a more nuanced, democratic path forward.
Disclaimer: This article is for discussion purposes only. It does not claim that the Sri Lankan government has announced or is planning a national firewall. Any references to such ideas are speculative and meant to encourage informed debate. Readers are advised to consult official sources for verified information.
Explaining the concept of a Great Firewall
A “Great Firewall” refers to a state-controlled mechanism that regulates, censors, or blocks access to content on the internet. The term originates from China’s infamous internet censorship system, the “Great Firewall of China,” which restricts access to international platforms like Google, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook while promoting government-approved alternatives. Such systems use technologies like IP blocking, DNS filtering, keyword monitoring, and deep packet inspection to control what users can access online. In essence, a Great Firewall allows a government to create a controlled digital environment where only approved content is visible. While proponents argue it can protect national security and preserve cultural values, critics view it as a tool for authoritarian control and suppression of dissent. The idea of replicating such a system in democratic or semi-democratic nations raises tough questions about freedom, privacy, and the future of an open internet in those societies.
Arguments for a Sri Lankan-style Firewall
Some argue that Sri Lanka needs a national-level firewall—often referred to as a “great firewall”—while others believe such a system would do more harm than good. Let’s begin by examining the arguments in favor of implementing a nationwide internet firewall.
Curbing Extremism and Hate Speech
Sri Lanka has a history of online platforms being weaponized to incite violence not to mention young people being exposed to online indoctrination. In 2018, a wave of anti-Muslim riots in Kandy was largely fueled by incendiary Facebook posts. In 2019, false rumors and hate speech spread online in the aftermath of the Easter Sunday bombings, escalating fear and communal tensions. In such a volatile climate, a government’s desire to monitor or restrict harmful content is understandable. A firewall could act as a preemptive barrier to halt the spread of extremist propaganda, radicalization, and fake news. Especially in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society, such a safeguard could preserve peace. If implemented transparently and fairly, this digital wall could serve as a protective shield against coordinated disinformation campaigns, both domestic and foreign. However, its legitimacy would hinge on whether it targets genuine threats or is manipulated to silence, dissent, and suppress minority voices.
Protecting Minors from Harmful Content
The internet, while empowering, is also a dangerous place—especially for children and teenagers. In Sri Lanka, where digital literacy is still catching up, many young users have unfiltered access to adult content, drug-related materials, online predators, and gambling platforms. A national firewall could serve as a protective mechanism, ensuring that pornographic and violent websites are not easily accessible, particularly through mobile networks and public Wi-Fi. This isn’t about moral policing—it’s about creating a safer digital space for the next generation. Other countries have adopted similar models that enforce age verification and block content flagged as dangerous for minors. In a context where parental controls are rarely used and tech companies are slow to self-regulate, the government may feel a responsibility to step in. If designed with care, such regulation could align with child protection laws without infringing too harshly on adult users’ freedoms.
Combating fake news during elections or Crises
The spread of disinformation during politically sensitive periods—elections, civil unrest, pandemics—can destabilize an entire nation. In Sri Lanka, false news on social media has misled voters, sparked panic-buying, and even led to the vilification of public figures. The rapid virality of such content often outpaces fact-checking efforts. A national firewall could act as a buffer in these critical moments, temporarily filtering or flagging misinformation while directing users to verified information sources. Countries like India and Singapore have already passed laws allowing emergency takedown of digital content to curb election interference. For Sri Lanka, a more automated, government-supervised content screening tool could reduce the impact of political manipulation campaigns. Of course, safeguards would be necessary to prevent misuse by ruling parties—but when lives and national stability are on the line, targeted internet controls may be justified in emergency scenarios under independent judicial oversight.
Cybersecurity concerns, especially from hostile Actors
Sri Lanka’s cyber defenses remain relatively weak. In recent years, local banks, government portals, and even hospitals have faced hacking attempts, many suspected to originate from hostile foreign actors. Cyber espionage, ransomware, and phishing campaigns are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Without a stronger digital perimeter, national infrastructure is vulnerable. A well-designed firewall—coupled with advanced cybersecurity protocols—could help detect and block harmful traffic, isolate malicious IPs, and reduce the surface area for attacks. The idea isn’t just about censorship but strategic defense. Countries like Iran and Russia justify their firewalls primarily on cybersecurity grounds. For Sri Lanka, such a system could act as a digital fortress, securing state networks and citizen data from infiltration. Yet, the real challenge lies in balancing national security with civil rights: a security-first approach must not become a blanket excuse for controlling online speech which I will discuss next.
Arguments Against a Sri Lankan Firewall
Now that we’ve gone through the arguments in support of a national-level firewall, it’s time to consider the opposing view. Some argue that implementing such a system would pose serious risks to freedom, privacy, and innovation. Let’s now examine the key arguments against a nationwide firewall in Sri Lanka.
The Erosion of the Freedom of Speech
Perhaps the most significant concern is the erosion of free speech. In any country—especially one with a history of political instability—a national firewall could become a weapon to suppress dissent, silence opposition, and manipulate narratives. Who gets to decide what content is “harmful” or “fake”? In the wrong hands, a firewall can be used to block criticism of the government, hinder activism, and muzzle independent journalism. We’ve seen this play out in countries like Turkey and Russia, where digital censorship began as “protection” but quickly morphed into repression. Sri Lanka’s democratic institutions, while functional, are still vulnerable to abuse. A firewall, no matter how well-intentioned, introduces a central point of control that could be misused under future regimes. In the name of security, we risk dismantling the very freedoms that define a healthy democracy. The cost of such control is often much higher than anticipated.
The Impact on the Digital Economy
The digital economy in Sri Lanka is growing fast, fueled by freelancers, tech startups, content creators, and remote workers who rely heavily on platforms like YouTube, WhatsApp, Instagram, and Google Drive. Restricting or slowing down these services—even during short-term outages—can lead to real financial losses for thousands. A national firewall could deter foreign investment, isolate the country from global markets, and drive tech talent abroad. Countries that have imposed such systems often see businesses resort to VPNs or face reduced productivity. Even partial restrictions might trigger investor hesitation, especially in IT and BPO sectors. Moreover, compliance burdens would fall on ISPs and local developers, stifling growth and innovation. For a country like Sri Lanka, which desperately needs digital progress to boost its economy, imposing strict controls could be counterproductive. Economic recovery and resilience demand openness—not digital walls.
Technical Development and Innovation
Innovation thrives on openness. Sri Lanka’s budding tech ecosystem—comprising developers, engineers, and startups—depends on unrestricted access to global knowledge, open-source platforms, and online communities. A firewall limits this flow. Developers might find GitHub repositories inaccessible. Entrepreneurs could lose access to growth tools. Students might struggle to reach educational resources or attend webinars. In the long term, such restrictions create a digital echo chamber where only state-approved tools and information are available. That’s a recipe for stagnation. Moreover, the technical costs of building and maintaining a comprehensive firewall are enormous money that could be spent on improving digital infrastructure, training, or cybersecurity. Instead of fostering local solutions, a firewall would foster fear. Talent will migrate, innovation will slow, and the nation will fall further behind in a rapidly evolving digital world. Progress depends on access—and access must remain free and open.
The Slippery Slope of Internet Censorship
Once censorship becomes normalized, it rarely stops at its original intent. What begins as a tool to fight hate speech or terrorism can quickly evolve into a system that censors dissent, satire, memes, or even harmless criticism. The biggest risk of a Great Firewall isn’t just what it blocks today—it’s what it might block tomorrow. Who decides what content qualifies as “harmful”? What’s to stop future governments from reclassifying political criticism or social commentary as national threats? This is the heart of the slippery slope argument. We’ve seen it happen in other nations where the firewall began with noble goals but ended up crushing civil society. Sri Lanka must tread carefully. Our democracy is not perfect, but it’s alive. Introducing mechanisms for mass censorship might start with good intentions but can end with irreversible damage. Digital freedom, once lost, is hard to win back.
Final Verdict
Sri Lanka absolutely needs to take digital threats seriously—but the solution is not a Chinese-style Great Firewall. Instead of building digital walls, we should be building smarter systems and a more digitally literate society. Education, awareness, platform accountability, and independent judicial oversight offer healthier, more democratic alternatives. Takedown requests should be public and appealable. Fact-checking should be incentivized. Children can be protected through parental control partnerships, not national blocks. A full-blown firewall will likely cause more harm than good by undermining the openness that fuels creativity, community, and growth. That said, there may be merit in implementing very limited, highly targeted blocks—such as banning predatory loan apps or scam websites known to exploit users. However, this should never be the foundation for a full firewall. The key is transparency, accountability, and proportionality. We need tools that empower, not imprison; that solve problems without destroying the very freedoms they aim to protect.
Wrap Up
Digital threats are undeniably real, and Sri Lanka must not ignore them. Online hate speech has incited violence, disinformation has influenced public opinion during crises, and malicious actors—both domestic and foreign—have exploited the internet to sow chaos. In such a volatile climate, the desire for a strong, centralized solution like a national firewall can be tempting. It gives the illusion of quick control and safety. However, history warns us that digital walls, once built, rarely come down easily. Control often begins with noble intent but gradually morphs into suppression. A balance must be struck between protecting the nation and preserving freedom. Sri Lanka must not trade one form of vulnerability—digital threats—for another: the erosion of democratic principles and civil liberties. The solution must be smarter, more transparent, and guided by the spirit of accountability—not fear.
Instead of resorting to sweeping censorship and mass content filtering, Sri Lanka’s digital future should be guided by empowerment, resilience, and targeted regulation. What we need are laws that are precise, not punitive; systems that protect users without stifling innovation. Investing in digital literacy will enable citizens to identify and resist disinformation on their own. Collaborating with tech platforms can enhance content moderation without infringing on freedom of speech. Creating independent oversight bodies ensures accountability in takedown requests. This is not about choosing between security and freedom—it’s about designing solutions that serve both. A full-fledged Great Firewall might silence bad actors, but it will also drown out dissenting voices, marginal voices, and creative voices. The healthier path is harder, slower, and more democratic—but it leads to a freer, smarter, and more united Sri Lanka in the digital age.
If you found this content helpful, I kindly ask you to leave your feedback in the comments section below. Sharing it on social media would also be greatly appreciated. In order to promote meaningful and respectful dialogue, I request that you use your full name when commenting. Please note that any comments containing profanity, name-calling, or a disrespectful tone will be deleted. Thank you for your understanding and participation.