Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election • Hacker News Board

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#61

Post by travisoneill1 » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 6:01 PM UTC

slim wrote: post #46

antiman0 wrote: post #4

> A source in Uganda’s telecom sector said the government had made clear to executives at telecoms companies that the social media ban was in retaliation for Facebook blocking some pro-government accounts. This is probably the interesting bit - a retaliatory move by a regime trying to silence the opposition. I don't think this has too many parallels (except for blocking of accounts) with the current US events, which…

It is related to US elections. because dictators in Africa can point to USA when they get criticized. Why should Facebook have the power to police speech during elections in Uganda and not the state of Uganda ?

Why should the state have power to police speech during elections? (FB shouldn't either)

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#62

Post by ardy42 » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 6:01 PM UTC

capableweb wrote: post #20

kiba wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And allow actors to spread disinformation anytime they wanted even though the megaphone was given and then amplified(on engagement metric) by these megacorporations in the first place?

Indeed. It's impossible to stop the spread of disinformation completely, no matter what we do. Instead, what we need, is better education on how to parse and digest information we receive from others. To stop taking everything we hear as automatic truth and instead consider all opinions, even if they sounds wrong at first. We need another Age of Reason instead of what we're executing on now.

> Indeed. It's impossible to stop the spread of disinformation completely, no matter what we do. Instead, what we need, is better education on how to parse and digest information we receive from others.

True, but you're being too black and white. While it may not be possible to stop disinformation completely, it is possible to reduce it significantly. What you're advocating for is akin to admitting that lead will never be completely eliminated from drinking water, so instead of doing anything to reduce it from toxic levels, we should (unrealistically) work on making people who are immune to lead poisoning.

Your solution is a chimera. It is not possible (or at least wildly impractical given current constraints) to teach most people to be so knowledgeable and wise that they can find the truth in a haystack of seductive lies. And even if that wasn't true, the people who've bought into the lies would label your education program as biased and fight it.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#63

Post by kortex » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 6:01 PM UTC

capableweb wrote: post #20

kiba wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And allow actors to spread disinformation anytime they wanted even though the megaphone was given and then amplified(on engagement metric) by these megacorporations in the first place?

Indeed. It's impossible to stop the spread of disinformation completely, no matter what we do. Instead, what we need, is better education on how to parse and digest information we receive from others. To stop taking everything we hear as automatic truth and instead consider all opinions, even if they sounds wrong at first. We need another Age of Reason instead of what we're executing on now.

Seconded. Establishing what is disinformation is hard; establishing truth is even harder. Restricting speech is fraught with trouble, but there is much precedent in the USA for compelling speech: see drug warnings and nutrition facts.

Censoring and banning should be reserved for actual hazards such as provoking violence. But I think the automatic tagging of social media with "Here is another perspective", while being seen by some as chilling, is the best way to go.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#64

Post by eznzt » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 6:03 PM UTC

uniqueid wrote: post #33

eznzt wrote: post #6

Better than doing what we do in the "civilised" world: only banning one side.

civilized I have trouble relating that word to the fresh memory of watching drooling, bearded gun-monkeys clambering on tables in the Capitol chanting 'hang Mike Pence!'

I think you misunderstood my tone. What I meant to say is that we often look at these things (Uganda banning social media) as "things that only happen in banana republics".

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#65

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 6:03 PM UTC

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #48

uniqueid wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

civilized I have trouble relating that word to the fresh memory of watching drooling, bearded gun-monkeys clambering on tables in the Capitol chanting 'hang Mike Pence!'

Both spellings of that word are acceptable. Get off of your high horse, especially if you can't even ride it yourself. Your depictions of the very disturbed, impoverished and desperate people involved in the DC/Capitol building fiasco are heartless, cruel, and completely uncivilized. You clearly have no idea what is going on in their lives, just as so many of them were unaware of what the BLM marches were all about.

They definitely weren't all impoverished. Certainly not the retired USAF colonel. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/01/10/retired-air-f...

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#66

Post by jeromegv » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 6:03 PM UTC

benjohnson wrote: post #32

djtriptych wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I hear these comments I wonder what the recommendation is to shrink the movement. Obviously open conversations did not stop the movement from growing.

Prosecuting Epstine would have helped. Auditing the voting system would have helped. Just show the movement that there nothing to hide rather than yell at them and appear to cover up.

Those voting systems were audited and that made absolutely no difference. Once the conspiracy theories were being debunked in court, they just kept coming with new ones.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#67

Post by eznzt » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #44

throwaway894345 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m pretty apathetic about these bannings (so hopefully this comment doesn’t read as support or opposition), but “not all conservatives were banned” does not refute “only conservatives were banned”.

The latter is an obvious lie. https://twitter.com/blm

Was that twitter account official in any capacity?

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#68

Post by throwaway894345 » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #43

benjohnson wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prosecuting Epstine would have helped. Auditing the voting system would have helped. Just show the movement that there nothing to hide rather than yell at them and appear to cover up.

There have been audits of the voting system. They didn't believe them, and they were reported falsely in the media they follow. It's a cult. It's like trying to convince them that aliens don't exist. (Epstein would have been prosecuted .. if he hadn't died in extremely mysterious circumstances. Now that's a situation where absence of evidence where evidence should be expected - the security cameras - drives paranoia.…

The “cult” (if you insist) was once much smaller, so something must be driving this phenomenon, which means there is hope that we can stop or even reverse it. What makes people go from believing the media, science, etc to unwarranted skepticism? Specifically, what changed in the last couple of decades that might’ve yielded this result? My pet theory is that our institutions increasingly pivoted from truth-seeking to left-wing activism, so the right lost considerable incentive to play the game, and indeed some of the right is breaking away and finding their own institutions (and less savory than those that we’ve built up over decades and centuries).

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#69

Post by Dig1t » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 6:05 PM UTC

tehjoker wrote: post #19

exabrial wrote: post #3

The predictable [and unfortunate] side effect of censorship on private platforms is it creates the illusion that the truth is being covered up. I have no doubts the next surveillance and encryption backdoor bills will be based upon the incidents happening right now. It's far better for society to keep discussions in plain sight, even if they are woefully misguided.

The crazy thing is that the Q-Anon people will inevitably see the spate of arrests and censorship as "The Storm" prophecy coming true but in reverse, an "Anti-Storm". I have a feeling this will only make many of them even more committed and possibly now that they can point to something real, could even grow the movement. Crazy stuff.

People seem not to realize that every action spawns a reaction by the other side, especially extreme ones. All this censoring will almost undoubtably cause some people on the other side to double down, unfortunately. :/

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election

#70

Post by munk-a » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 6:05 PM UTC

capableweb wrote: post #20

kiba wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And allow actors to spread disinformation anytime they wanted even though the megaphone was given and then amplified(on engagement metric) by these megacorporations in the first place?

Indeed. It's impossible to stop the spread of disinformation completely, no matter what we do. Instead, what we need, is better education on how to parse and digest information we receive from others. To stop taking everything we hear as automatic truth and instead consider all opinions, even if they sounds wrong at first. We need another Age of Reason instead of what we're executing on now.

I think that "responsible news" and "responsible government" are two things that are achieved by societies by pure luck and cannot simply be willed into existence. Given what's happened in the US with the emergence of the alt right I've been wracking my brain over ways we could safely accomplish free expression of ideas and I don't think it's possible.

Either you allow for hate speech to be empowered and gain a megaphone or someone needs to be the decider on what is false. You don't actually need to kill off misinformed reporting or slanted reporting - you just need to censor reporting that is knowingly false and presenting non-facts as if they are facts - if you can kill that sort of information dead then I think society is able to sort out and prevent bubbles from forming around publications that choose to focus on certain stories - or that consistently frame stories to suit their agenda.

I think that the stars aligned from about 95-2010 where all the news outlets were still afraid enough of the government that they mostly kept in line but the government didn't really have the resources to actually police things.

Oh also, the Age of Reason was pretty darn irrational compared to today - don't let a fancy name and rose tinted glasses blind you to the faults of yesterday.