Live data from Hacker News

Uganda Bans VPNs to Prevent Users from Dodging Its New Social Media Tax

techdirt.com

121–130 of 172 posts

Re: Uganda Bans VPNs to Prevent Users from Dodging Its New Social Media Tax

#121
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've heard second-hand (my SO has a friend who frequently travels to China), they do actually block people's private one-off VPN servers quite effectively. Have a look at https://www.cs.tufts.edu/comp/116/archive/fall2016/ctang.pdf - it talks about GFW using machine learning with flow analysis to do this.

Why do they not outright block encrypted connections which they fail to bruteforce?

That blocks a large percentage of the websites out there now.

It's probably easier to just block all AWS/Azure/Linode/DigitalOcean/etc... blocks.

Re: Uganda Bans VPNs to Prevent Users from Dodging Its New Social Media Tax

#122
post #10

I'm not sure why this tax should be labelled as absurd. Lots of countries tax TV, phone already. Taxing social media sounds weird only because no one else has done it yet.

The effective tax rate is so disproportionate as to be obviously punitive. Relative to average earnings, it'd be equivalent to America imposing a social media tax of $2,000 per year. It's clearly not a good-faith effort to raise revenues, but a de facto ban on social media.

Re: Uganda Bans VPNs to Prevent Users from Dodging Its New Social Media Tax

#123
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but then you're back at general taxation of a utility, not discriminatory taxation of certain content. I disagree wholeheartedly that it would make sense to have a government tax on TV slots, but it does not manipulate information exchange in any way. Taxing social media would be more akin to placing a tax on documentaries, or all content containing a narrative by Morgan Freeman.

Since this tax is on the user’s end, this would be more like a tax on watching documentaries, and then scrambling to control all DVD players and such to ensure they report your viewing.

That's what I meant, although I failed to be explicit about it.

Although, the enforcement would be on delivery for social media (i.e. ISP reports social media traffic), so cable TV that detects if your TV is on during documentary broadcasts would maybe be a better analogy.

Re: Uganda Bans VPNs to Prevent Users from Dodging Its New Social Media Tax

#124
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxing TV and phone is like taxing internet connectivity. While a bit odd, this is perfectly fine. The reason for this is that it does not discriminate content, but only care about the utility itself. Taxing social media is like taxing you for saying or hearing a specific word or sentence on the phone, or every time a certain show is broadcast on the TV. This is absurd, and a violation of free speech, as it discrimin…

Taxing TV and phone is like taxing internet connectivity. Is it? Then why do you pay taxes to use VOIP? Is internet not a carrier, while TV & phone are services?

I don't quite know about any VoIP taxes, but I am quite certain that no place puts taxes on the VoIP traffic itself over internet as a carrier.

Services purchased that use the internet as a carrier may be taxed as any other financial transaction, but in that case, the internet itself is still a neutral medium that does not discriminate traffic. Being non-discriminatory does not mean that you cannot pay Netflix a monthly fee, with VAT and other applicable taxes, to give you an account.

Re: Uganda Bans VPNs to Prevent Users from Dodging Its New Social Media Tax

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxing TV and phone is like taxing internet connectivity. While a bit odd, this is perfectly fine. The reason for this is that it does not discriminate content, but only care about the utility itself. Taxing social media is like taxing you for saying or hearing a specific word or sentence on the phone, or every time a certain show is broadcast on the TV. This is absurd, and a violation of free speech, as it discrimin…

> Taxing social media is like taxing you for saying or hearing a specific word or sentence on the phone, or every time a certain show is broadcast on the TV. This is absurd, and a violation of free speech. Is it? After the shenanigans that have been uncovered with recent elections (specifically referring to the US and Britain, I’m sure there are others) is ‘free speach’ really anthing that is being defended by opposi…

Just because the U.S. and Britain fails to care about free speech and human rights doesn't mean that the battle is not worth fighting.

This tax is in direct opposition to free speech, so opposing it defends free speech. It is, however, only a single battle in a very long war.

Re: Uganda Bans VPNs to Prevent Users from Dodging Its New Social Media Tax

#126

As a professional network engineer this is utterly preposterous. Ignorant government officials who know nothing about how the Internet actually works, trying to fuck with it because it's something beyond their petty attempts at control. When will people realize that blocking VoIP and blocking a ton of other stuff (Ethiopia and the UAE are great examples), in the long term and in aggregate, results in more economic da…

Maybe the leaders have the opinion that "Internet wars are good, and easy to win."

Re: Uganda Bans VPNs to Prevent Users from Dodging Its New Social Media Tax

#127

How do you even define social media? Is HN social media?

I'd guess the definition goes along the lines "El Presidente does not like what someone said on this platform, so it is social media and banned". It'll be highly arbitrary.

Re: Uganda Bans VPNs to Prevent Users from Dodging Its New Social Media Tax

#128
I agree with almost all of the frustrated comments here, and the premise of the article.

I was also involved with a major F50 that was warily forced to deal with various regimes trying to filter content.

But consider for a moment:

'Globalization' is having many nefarious effects on the world - and the 'openness' of the internet is generally only a mostly positive aspect from powers that are large and centralized. America is relatively free, and nobody 100x the size of America is going to come along and 'control your internet', and therefore potentially control your economic and political system.

The ubiquitous internet means that a small or mid-sized nation that is not a G7 is at major risk of having the almost the totality of their nation overturned by foreign powers.

Consider: Facebook, or Google, could very easily change electoral outcomes in many nations, possibly even by accident. A small change in their algorithm that suppressed some, and promoted others, an accidental ban of a political group, etc. - can happen. I don't suggest FB or G are interested in this, but remember they also do have relationships with the US Government, and it's reasonable for these nations to be very cautious.

Moreover, an open Internet allows fully malicious actors (hacker groups, bad international enterprises, bad governments), to do some really quite dangerous things to other nations, most of whom are too small to be able to protect themselves.

'The Internet' is the new 5th column if you will, and to some extent it can have more power than government or the Supreme Court in many nations. If 80% of a nation is convinced of some truth/mistruth perpetuated by 'whoever' on the Internet, well, then legality hardly matters. It has more revolutionary potential than perhaps any historical ideology.

Even on the economic front - Globalization means that all of the talent is getting sucked up like a vacuum into centres in the biggest economies. So many of the best go to America. So many European professionals flow into Germany or the UK - to their advantage.

Both of these issues come to head with issues like journalism - it's one thing if 'American journalism' is concentrating in a few American outlets, but imagine if your country was losing most of it's journalistic opportunity and that centralization was happening in another country - a large country like America with whom your nation may not have a great history.

Tax bases are a real thing - and though the Internet should in the long run provide more opportunity for local governments, in the present it's causing losses in tax revenues, or at least, those revenues created by new economies are not being realized locally.

Recognize that these issues are a problem, and that the erstwhile 'open internet' which positioned as a very positive and aspirational aspect of global development by American/Western forces, does not necessarily represent the same opportunity in the rest of the world.

So yes, so many corrupt and stupid leaders doing corrupt and stupid things to their own nations, but the answer is definitely not "Just let Google be the Ministry of Truth" for the nations of the world. Definitely not.

Re: Uganda Bans VPNs to Prevent Users from Dodging Its New Social Media Tax

#129
post #10

I'm not sure why this tax should be labelled as absurd. Lots of countries tax TV, phone already. Taxing social media sounds weird only because no one else has done it yet.

Taxing TV and phone is like taxing internet connectivity. While a bit odd, this is perfectly fine. The reason for this is that it does not discriminate content, but only care about the utility itself. Taxing social media is like taxing you for saying or hearing a specific word or sentence on the phone, or every time a certain show is broadcast on the TV. This is absurd, and a violation of free speech, as it discrimin…

Beer is taxed differently than bread, and that's fine.

It would be more absurd if different brands of beer were taxed differently.

I don't think it's going to work out well given the lack of standardized information floating around, but the impetus is does not have to be entirely unreasonable, even if in this situation it probably is.

Re: Uganda Bans VPNs to Prevent Users from Dodging Its New Social Media Tax

#130
post #119

I'm living in Uganda at the moment and have a couple of things to add: 1. VPNs still work fine (I'm using one right now, though its one I installed on a digitalocean instance - it's possible those receiving lots of traffic have now been blocked). 2. This tax is unaffordable for many Ugandans (it would be about 5% of the average wage here). Whatsapp is very popular here and this has impacted everybody I know. Most peo…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Uganda has a somewhat reasonable diversity of domestic ISP AS that are connected to other east African AS for international connectivity outbound via Kenya and Tanzania. It's not like a single government controlled bottleneck situation (As in Iran, where all ISPs have to be downstream of the government AS, which operates all of the international L2 transport and L3 transit/peering connections).
Post reply on HN