Nepal Bans 26 Social Media Platforms, Including Facebook and YouTube • Hacker News Board

Re: Nepal Bans 26 Social Media Platforms, Including Facebook and YouTube

#131

Post by isaacremuant » Mon, Sep 08, 2025, 9:58 AM UTC

ycombigators wrote: post #121

isaacremuant wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hahaha. Fuck off with the "it's the enemy bullshit". You'll call people "russians" if they don't agree with your jingoism. You'll try and get people against wars fired. Post your name right now. Real name and address. If that's what you want, right?

You didn't address my point. Which is unsurprising.

I did. Your point puts national security of a boogeyman us vs them as paramount.

Your point gives the authoritian the ability to use "the red scare" as tactic to ensure no subversives appear. No one to challenge their power. We must monitor all to find "the infiltrated enemy".

Your bullshit is not new. It's been done all throughout history and it's always just an excuse to suppress threats to individual power. Political parties are proscribed because "they're working for foreign actors and we deem them to be treasonous".

Re: Nepal Bans 26 Social Media Platforms, Including Facebook and YouTube

#132

Post by isaacremuant » Mon, Sep 08, 2025, 10:00 AM UTC

mkleczek wrote: post #100

seneca wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anonymity is not a prerequisite to freedom of speech. I couldn't disagree more. The vast majority of papers the founders of the US published to argue against tyrannical government were written anonymously. > Broken lives of people harassed by anonymous trolls on social media are the dark side of anonymity. This is a cliche "think of the children" argument. Stripping away anonymity is a gargantuan problem, and enabl…

> This is a cliche "think of the children" argument. Stripping away anonymity is a gargantuan problem, and enables authoritarian regimes to punish dissent. So we agree: authoritarian regimes are a gargantuan problem, not stripping away anonymity. > Trolls are a very minor problem comparatively. Online predator almost killed my child - this is not a "very minor problem". At least not for me. > This is essentially sayi…

Almost killed your one child. Authoritarian governments have murdered many more.

At some point the disingenous concerned parents need to start dealing with their own parenting instead of pretending we need to live in 1984 just because your bad parenting requires it.

Your way has many more deaths of government dissenters. Stop using "death" as a scare tactic. Much like the "war on terror" supporters, it's a fraud.

Re: Nepal Bans 26 Social Media Platforms, Including Facebook and YouTube

#133

Post by isaacremuant » Mon, Sep 08, 2025, 10:01 AM UTC

mkleczek wrote: post #100

seneca wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anonymity is not a prerequisite to freedom of speech. I couldn't disagree more. The vast majority of papers the founders of the US published to argue against tyrannical government were written anonymously. > Broken lives of people harassed by anonymous trolls on social media are the dark side of anonymity. This is a cliche "think of the children" argument. Stripping away anonymity is a gargantuan problem, and enabl…

> This is a cliche "think of the children" argument. Stripping away anonymity is a gargantuan problem, and enables authoritarian regimes to punish dissent. So we agree: authoritarian regimes are a gargantuan problem, not stripping away anonymity. > Trolls are a very minor problem comparatively. Online predator almost killed my child - this is not a "very minor problem". At least not for me. > This is essentially sayi…

Post your full name and address if you're so happy with lack of anonymity.

Re: Nepal Bans 26 Social Media Platforms, Including Facebook and YouTube

#134

Post by isaacremuant » Mon, Sep 08, 2025, 10:04 AM UTC

ycombigators wrote: post #123

isaacremuant wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have experience of people disappeared because of totalitarianism. Your teens on the brink of self harm are peanuts compared to state murder. Try some other shitty propaganda.

Let me guess, it was Alex Jones. Did he fall out of a window?

Ah. This is it, folks. You're a liar and you project your lies. Incapable of realising how people have lived shit in history.

Go google "disappeared people in military dictatorships" and maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something about authoritians and how they dealt with "subversives".

Not everyone here lives in the US.

Your account is 17 hours old and you want to find the "enemy within". Aren't you the enemy within?

Demosntate you're not a foreign actor, according to your own rules, post your full name and address. Or maybe that's a stupid thing to do and anonymity is valuable?

Re: Nepal Bans 26 Social Media Platforms, Including Facebook and YouTube

#135

Post by perching_aix » Mon, Sep 08, 2025, 10:47 AM UTC

mdp2021 wrote: post #128

perching_aix wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not perfect, not meant to be perfect Nor was what we were going for, yet your scrutiny didn't escape us. > "Missing out on social media" is not representative of the facts It is quite literally the bare fact itself as per the title and the article's contents. > a coercion over a population This is a characterization. I could remark that it was in defense of a population, and it would hold the same weight: it's wort…

> Nor was what we were going for And where did you intend to go? In front of "State cuts the services" you went "Oh I get advantages staying without them". Yes but see, there are 30 million people there that may have had different choice, and some of them with rational choice (and fully evidently so: the World Video Archive is in the ban), and those 30Mln are within other billions that may be in a similar situation.…

> And where did you intend to go?

Where I said I did. I explained it to you several times over. I can only do so much if you're not willing to listen or are unable to relate.

> (Many of them are here, your peers in these pages.) In front of them, going "I found out there are bright sides" would make them go "Duude...".

Cool - and if the same thing happened in Russia and I posted this to my Russian mates on Discord [1], as it happened before, they'd laugh their ass off first, and then we'd shift to discussing workarounds. According to what you explained so far of your world model though, things are either inappropriate or appropriate, and they are observer invariant and temporally static. I guess this would make my Russian mates wrong about what they themselves think or something?

Not very persuasive. I'm also not really sure why you think these peers on these pages need explaining why this situation is bad, or why they'd benefit from reading another endless charade, enumerating the same tired points, and making them spiral even further (since according to you, this was definitively coercive, so there's nothing they can do anyhow). Why there isn't and should not be a space for this specific angle, as it is inappropriate according to you, and even though it is not practically possible for you to have consulted those peers to get their opinion, you're just speaking in their name.

> Gross logical fault

There is a word for that, it's called a fallacy. I did not engage in any, which you must have also noticed, hence why you didn't say that instead.

I feel our "discussion" has run its course.

[1] Yes I did see Discord was blocked in Nepal. Please apply reasoning to fill the blanks.

Re: Nepal Bans 26 Social Media Platforms, Including Facebook and YouTube

#136

Post by giancarlostoro » Mon, Sep 08, 2025, 12:21 PM UTC

zh3 wrote: post #85

giancarlostoro wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If free speech in America goes away, the rest of the world will suffer for it as well. People get worked up about "hate speech" a very arbitrary thing, that changes over time, but they don't realize the slippery slope that creates if you try to police speech. The things I've seen Australians and even British people arrested for posting or commenting on online is absurd. The people who support it are fine with it, unt…

Ref. the UK ('British people'), there's currently a thing where peacfully protesting a ban will get you arrested (I have a lot of sympathy for the police in this case, whatever they do will be wrong in the eyes of one side or the other). [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rvly00440o

One thing that annoys me is when a police officer, even here in the US clearly does not agree with a law. I was under the impression in one of my government classes in college that police officers could in fact choose not to arrest someone, but a lot of the time they opt-out of making that decision for whatever reason. I never looked if in the UK it's similar, but it always bothers me more when a police officer is "just following orders" especially when at least here in the US, they can just not charge someone at their discretion, because sometimes the law is just wild.

We also see it with judges. Our system isn't perfect, but it allows for people who strongly believe a law is unjust to step in.

Re: Nepal Bans 26 Social Media Platforms, Including Facebook and YouTube

#137

Post by giancarlostoro » Mon, Sep 08, 2025, 12:24 PM UTC

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #92

giancarlostoro wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If free speech in America goes away, the rest of the world will suffer for it as well. People get worked up about "hate speech" a very arbitrary thing, that changes over time, but they don't realize the slippery slope that creates if you try to police speech. The things I've seen Australians and even British people arrested for posting or commenting on online is absurd. The people who support it are fine with it, unt…

I had a conversation with a talented UK startup developer about a month ago at a defense industry event. He mentioned wanting to move to the US. I assumed smugly “must be for our business environment or contractual benefits” and said as much. He quickly responded with his concerns about being arrested for social media posts, and mentioned how many people were being arrested in the UK. No discussion of anything about…

> When it becomes an issue like this, we’re going to see talent flight to more favorable climates

I sincerely hope we see other countries adopt our original intent on free speech as law of their lands.

Re: Nepal Bans 26 Social Media Platforms, Including Facebook and YouTube

#138

Post by giancarlostoro » Mon, Sep 08, 2025, 12:25 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #83

giancarlostoro wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If free speech in America goes away, the rest of the world will suffer for it as well. People get worked up about "hate speech" a very arbitrary thing, that changes over time, but they don't realize the slippery slope that creates if you try to police speech. The things I've seen Australians and even British people arrested for posting or commenting on online is absurd. The people who support it are fine with it, unt…

> If free speech in America goes away What part of the President threatening financial sanctions and jail time for speech makes you think we have this? To the degree the American experiment has shown anything about free speech, it’s that it may not work uncensored broadly. At the end of the day, we voted against it.

It should be valued now more than ever. We are the only country that has it to the extent that we do. Unfortunately, that's not the only amendment we blindly violated.

Re: Nepal Bans 26 Social Media Platforms, Including Facebook and YouTube

#139

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Sep 08, 2025, 1:11 PM UTC

giancarlostoro wrote: post #138

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If free speech in America goes away What part of the President threatening financial sanctions and jail time for speech makes you think we have this? To the degree the American experiment has shown anything about free speech, it’s that it may not work uncensored broadly. At the end of the day, we voted against it.

It should be valued now more than ever. We are the only country that has it to the extent that we do. Unfortunately, that's not the only amendment we blindly violated.

> should be valued now more than ever. We are the only country that has it to the extent that we do

And it’s causing lots of problems with questionable benefit. Millions of people with no medical training and the critical thinking skills of a first generation LLM debating vaccines online is not productive.

Re: Nepal Bans 26 Social Media Platforms, Including Facebook and YouTube

#140

Post by mdp2021 » Mon, Sep 08, 2025, 1:52 PM UTC

perching_aix wrote: post #135

mdp2021 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nor was what we were going for And where did you intend to go? In front of "State cuts the services" you went "Oh I get advantages staying without them". Yes but see, there are 30 million people there that may have had different choice, and some of them with rational choice (and fully evidently so: the World Video Archive is in the ban), and those 30Mln are within other billions that may be in a similar situation.…

> And where did you intend to go? Where I said I did. I explained it to you several times over. I can only do so much if you're not willing to listen or are unable to relate. > (Many of them are here, your peers in these pages.) In front of them, going "I found out there are bright sides" would make them go "Duude...". Cool - and if the same thing happened in Russia and I posted this to my Russian mates on Discord [1…

Have you read the rest?

> not willing to listen

You think you show much hearing on this side? In front of what is happening in Nepal and elsewhere, the reduction of the matter to "oh a break from social media is healthy" is neither on point nor constructive - very simple. The constructive part you meant to convey, I still do not get.

> I did not engage in any

Apart from the one I pointed to and the other ones I have not mentioned? Not just precising the difference between fallacies and logical faults, but all the attributions of intention you expressed you construed, such as «explaining why this situation is bad». The latter was only pointed out to you because you clearly do not seem to get it, if you go "there are plus sides on not using social media" in front of of a government ban that closes the doors to a critical part of information to a population.

I hope you have seen the frontpage now, "14 Killed in protests in Nepal over social media ban" - which, as already a number of posts reveal, is not about social media. The benefits of your "abstinence" have little to do with this.