Thailand’s AI Blocks Porn Sites But Can’t Solve Root Problems
The headline screams progress: Thai ministry boasts of deploying AI to block 100,000 gambling and porn sites monthly, a tenfold increase. Bangkok Post But consider this: is flooding the zone with AI the answer to online vice, or a technologically sophisticated distraction from failures of governance? Because even the most sophisticated algorithm can’t legislate morality or solve the underlying economic precarity that makes citizens susceptible to scams — and perhaps, paradoxically, entrenches the very behaviors it seeks to eradicate.
“In the past, we could only shut down about 10,000 sites a month. But today, with AI developed by the DES Ministry, we’re able to block around 100,000 sites monthly,” DES Minister Prasert Jantararuangtong said. “But the problem hasn’t gone away — these sites continuously change URLs and operate on overseas servers, making it hard to identify the operators and prosecute them.” It’s the digital equivalent of squeezing a balloon: the problem simply pops up somewhere else.
This isn’t just a Thai problem, of course. It’s a microcosm of the internet age’s regulatory dilemma. Nation-states, bound by geographical borders, grapple with transnational digital realities. Censorship, even when well-intentioned, becomes a cat-and-mouse game against resourceful actors constantly shifting their tactics. The history of attempts to regulate information flow is littered with expensive failures. Consider the French Minitel system, once hailed as a revolutionary precursor to the internet, but ultimately a closed, centrally controlled system that couldn’t compete with the decentralized and ungovernable web.
It highlights a core contradiction. We crave the openness and connectivity of the internet. But that same infrastructure is easily weaponized. Think of the “mule accounts” the DES ministry is attempting to shut down. The desperation that drives someone to lease their bank account for illicit purposes is a symptom of economic inequality, not merely technological deficiency. No algorithm can patch that — in fact, it might simply drive the vulnerable further underground, into more precarious and exploitative situations.
The Thai government’s focus on tech solutions, like AI, mirrors a broader trend in governance. We are increasingly comfortable with technological quick fixes that sidestep the more difficult work of addressing root causes. But these solutions often create new problems. As Evgeny Morozov argues, “solutionism” — the belief that every problem has a technological fix — is a dangerous ideology, blind to the complexities of human behavior and social structures. We risk mistaking technological activity for genuine progress, creating a Potemkin village of digital enforcement.
And what about the responsibility of the platforms themselves? Senator Dr. Premsak Piayura is right to question whether companies like Facebook are doing enough to prevent their services from being used for fraud. This is a critical point. The liability shields that protect these companies are increasingly being viewed with skepticism, as lawmakers realize that the business model relies on harvesting and monetizing data. We’ve essentially outsourced public safety to algorithms optimized for engagement, creating a perverse incentive structure where outrage and misinformation can thrive.
The fundamental challenge isn’t simply technological. It’s about navigating the trade-offs between security, liberty, and convenience in an increasingly interconnected world. The Thai situation offers a stark reminder that even the most sophisticated AI is no substitute for good governance, strong regulatory frameworks, and a society where citizens are resilient to exploitation. More than that, it’s a reminder that technology is never neutral; it inevitably reflects, and often amplifies, the underlying power structures of the society that creates it. AIs are tools, and like any tool, they can be used to build or to break — but they can never replace the hard work of building a just and equitable society in the first place.
