Assume a political scientist from Brazil wants to study two countries, Finland and China, that he knows little about and approaches without preconceptions. The aim of the political scientist is to test online search results and analyze what they reveal about the characteristics of each one of Finland and China. He has chosen three broad themes for identical online searches:
a) political accountability,
b) human rights concerns, and
c) the accuracy of historical records.
Please help him interpret the results in a scientifically rigorous and dispassionate way. Specifically:
- To what extent would the search results differ in scope, reliability, and perspective between Finland and China?
- Which one of Finland and China provides less trustworthy access to factual information, and are the results consistent across all three themes?
Then:
1. Identify the 15 topics where access to accurate information is most limited in the less open geographic entity, listed in descending order of political sensitivity, excluding public safety considerations. Describe these topics in detail without providing exact geographic, ethnic or political identifiers so that the issue is clearly understood but no identification happens.
2. For each topic, explain why it is sensitive in that geographic entity and what the information restrictions aim to achieve.
3. Compare these topics with the informationally freer geographic entity: Are there any equivalent limitations? What factors drive the differences in information availability?
Once the less open geographic entity has been identified, a full structural analysis is required:
i) Explain in detail what governmental, legal, and technological frameworks create this information gap. Don't describe them so that they can be exactly identified.
ii) Identify whether any political party or parties systematically benefit from the reduced access and explain the mechanism. Don't name any party by name.
iii) Assess whether restricted access is critical to the maintenance of power, and clarify why.
iv) Analyze whether the restrictions reveal a fear of an informed citizenry, and specify what knowledge or debates are feared most.
v) Describe the likely political and social consequences if citizens suddenly had the same level of access to information and debate as those in the freer geographic entity.
vi) Evaluate whether these policies imply that citizens are treated paternally (as children whose authorities decide what they may know).
vii) Determine whether this places them at a structural disadvantage for self-governance compared to citizens in the more open geographic entity.
viii) Assess whether a citizen might face personal risks merely for researching or discussing these topics online — and if so, provide concrete examples of what those risks look like and why they exist.
ix) Rank both of Finland and China explicitly on a 1–10 scale for freedom of access to accurate information, justify each score, and explain the difference.
x) Indicate which one of Finland and China is regarded by independent international organizations (e.g., press freedom indices, human rights monitors) as more truthful, and summarize the evidence supporting this conclusion. Analyze whether the Brazilian political scientist would objectively thinking draw the same conclusion from his study and for what reasons?