Uganda Bans VPNs to Prevent Users from Dodging Its New Social Media Tax • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by JohnGB » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 7:42 AM UTC

wmf wrote: post #136

temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #64

The Uganda OTT tax is probably meant to stifle online political speech and organizing, but the concept itself, taxing most over-the-top communication mediums that use the mobile networks solely as an opaque data pipe (and typically only work with their captive apps) is a concept that merits more discussion than being patently called "absurd". These services aren't interoperable, they exfiltrate data to foreign countr…

exfiltrate data to foreign countries (where they may be subject to foreign intercept) If you're, say, a Ugandan dissident would you rather be spied on by the NSA or the Ugandan government? Tunneling all data out of the country may be safer for the majority of people, but maybe I'm falling for the trope of downtrodden poor who are being exploited by their (presumably) oppressive government.

One is more likely to have you disappear in the night if you share something against their interests, and the other is more likely to bomb your child's wedding if you share something against their interests.

Neither is good, so let's not pretend that one is harmless.

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

#162

Post by arghwhat » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 9:12 AM UTC

gascan wrote: post #141

arghwhat wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mont…

http://www.ipfone.com/taxes-and-fees/

Ah, all of the VoIP fees are just fees for gaining access to the PSTN network from the outside (not necessarily through the VoIP). All of the taxes relate to any use of telephone services.

Thus, it's just the price of the service your are purchasing, none being related to how it is delivered.

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

#163

Post by arghwhat » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 9:25 AM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #133

arghwhat wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But the companies hit own the forums, and don’t support free speech. I agree that it’s a potentially slippery slope for regulation, but it’s not currently an area where free speech is tolerated. Just yesterday Zuckerberg was apologising for censoring inappropriately. I don’t have a strong view either way, I’m just not convinced that the ‘free speech’ aspect is as direct as you state. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/…

No one cares about the hit Facebook takes from having social media blocked. In fact, I'd rather have them crash and burn.

The problem is that the citizens get access to all social media taken away through taxes that most would avoid. Social media is also Twitter, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Snapchat, WeChat, Weibo, QQ, ...

It is not suddenly okay to block free speech by limiting/removing access to social media, just because one of these social media are known to censor content in other ways. One crime does not justify the next.

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

#164

Post by arghwhat » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 9:32 AM UTC

sonnyblarney wrote: post #129

arghwhat wrote: post #31

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…

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.

It is important to understand where the internet fits in this metaphor.

That different services cost different things with different taxes is not a problem.

However, with a beer analogy, it would be a special tax on transportation of beer (including bringing it home from the store), which seem a lot less sensible than just pricing beer and bread differently.

After all, the internet is an information transport, and it was a tax on using the internet for certain things (social media).

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

#165

Post by Tijdreiziger » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 10:17 AM UTC

hk__2 wrote: post #72

sametmax wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird. In france calls in in the eu and to the usa are free and unlimited on most contracts.

> Weird. In france calls in in the eu and to the usa are free and unlimited on most contracts. That’s because we have really good phone contracts in France compared to the rest of the World, and also because mobile roaming charges are forbidden in the EU [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaming#Roaming_between_Europe...

It is, however, not forbidden to charge extra for calls/SMS from your home country to the EU. (A confusing fact, as calling from non-home EU countries to the EU can _not_ carry extra charges.)

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

#166

Post by jessaustin » Sat, Jul 07, 2018, 6:03 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #143

okmokmz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We've got a sugar tax here in the UK as our newest form of indulgence tax. We just got one in Seattle as well

Progressive communities love this particular regressive tax.

I'd love to see an argument for why this tax is not regressive...

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

#167

Post by dang » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 1:01 AM UTC

shamsalmon wrote: post #53

exabrial wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't sound any better. So if I have an asset that I'm not using, it's morally just to take it from me because I'm not using it?

[flagged]

Please don't break the HN guideline which asks you not to call names in arguments. It is found here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Your comment would be fine without the first sentence.

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

#168

Post by dang » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 1:02 AM UTC

exabrial wrote: post #26

rb808 wrote: 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.

Because tax, in general is absurd. You're literally taking people's money under the threat of force. Just because it is done quite universally does not justify the practice. More specifically, taxes are abused near universally. From the sugar taxes in Seattle (unless you are Starbucks), or forced Union dues that fund political campaigns, the practice is abused. Meanwhile necessary services like police, firefighters,…

Please keep generic ideological tangents such as taxation-is-theft off Hacker News. They only ever lead to repeats of the same discussions for the millionth time, and usually flamewars. Repetition and flamewar are two of the most off-topic things here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#169

Post by sonnyblarney » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 1:11 AM UTC

arghwhat wrote: post #164

sonnyblarney wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is important to understand where the internet fits in this metaphor. That different services cost different things with different taxes is not a problem. However, with a beer analogy, it would be a special tax on transportation of beer (including bringing it home from the store), which seem a lot less sensible than just pricing beer and bread differently. After all, the internet is an information transport, and it…

If they are taxing on the IP level or packet level, then yes, you could make this argument.

But if they are taxing on the service level, ie FB or What's App, then no, it's just information they are taxing. They could feasibly just use 'packets' or 'IP' as a crude measure of that service.

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

#170

Post by spacerat3004 » Sun, Jul 08, 2018, 6:32 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #143

okmokmz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We've got a sugar tax here in the UK as our newest form of indulgence tax. We just got one in Seattle as well

Progressive communities love this particular regressive tax.

You can be progressive and legitimately support regressive taxes