Live data from Hacker News

Uganda bans social media ahead of election

dw.com

41–50 of 76 posts

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of election

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> clear ties to inciting violent riots https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1347302588434284544 Twitter selectively enforces their rules, largely targeting conservatives.

When tens of millions of people protest something, it could just be because they have a legitimate grievance. That said, it should be perfectly OK to permanently ban seditionists and traitors, as well as those who egg them on. If those are conservatives to you, then that's your words, not mine.

And Twitter should act as an arbiter for such distinction?

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of election

#42
post #2

I can see a future where something like this becomes default in most countries. Unthinkable just a few years ago.

I think even democratic country like India would start to consider "national" social media for national security purpose. Of course, Jio might be a strong lobbyist for that.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of election

#43
post #16

Should elected officials be allowed to use social networks to communicate with the people? I don't consider myself a traditionalist, but this is one area where I prefer to see elected officials use government and journalistic channels for broadcasting information.

The imbalance is clear though. If Museveni can leverage social and state media but Wine can't, then it makes organization, outreach, and exposure much more difficult.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of election

#44
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When tens of millions of people protest something, it could just be because they have a legitimate grievance. That said, it should be perfectly OK to permanently ban seditionists and traitors, as well as those who egg them on. If those are conservatives to you, then that's your words, not mine.

And Twitter should act as an arbiter for such distinction?

They decided to.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of election

#45
post #4

Twitter’s official statement on this is one for the history books: https://mobile.twitter.com/Policy/status/1349059275461685250

:facepalm:

Of course, it's not the first time Jack has been a hypocrite. Remember when he donated millions to Kaep right after Kaep glorified and encouraged rioting and violence (via tweets)? Ah, those were the days.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of election

#46
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It has nothing to do with Trump at all" might be a strong assertion, but this history is absolutely relevant. Thanks for sharing.

I don't think it's a particularly strong assertion. Museveni's pattern around elections and dissent has been EXTREMELY consistent since I first started living there 20 years ago.

You're actually in Uganda?

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of election

#48

I saw Twitter's Public Policy team melting down about this. What did they expect? Pandora's Box has been opened

Please. Uganda ran newspapers out of the country, they routinely arrest opposing politicians, and they remove anything that might get in the way of the dictator staying in power. Museveni shuts down opposition - it has nothing to do with Twitter other than the fact that Twitter is a popular form of communication.

That may well be. The problem is that Twitter has lost their credibility on the issue. If you make a habit of rolling around in the mud, then don't be surprised if people assume you stink.

This is the rejoinder to those who defended them by saying "they're a private platform, they can do whatever they want". And I actually agree with that. But in spheres of life without explicit legal protections, people will come to rely on informal reputation and cultural norms.

Twitter is learning the hard way about why companies jealously guard their reputation for fairness and neutrality. Taking a public and divisive stand on the culture war issue du jour is rarely smart business. Like many tech darling Icaruses, Jack Dorsey probably thought the time-tested rules of business didn't apply. Watching 10% of his company's value vaporize in a few days was a hard way to learn that's not true. Hopefully $5 billion was worth it to keep attending Bay Area cocktail parties.

At the end of the day Twitter has wrecked its reputation as a fair and neutral platform. It will take at least a generation to repair. A consequence of this will be that in situations like Uganda, nobody will afford it the benefit of the doubt any more.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of election

#50
post #4

Twitter’s official statement on this is one for the history books: https://mobile.twitter.com/Policy/status/1349059275461685250

I don't think so. There's a big difference between a reactive censorship of a single powerful person by Twitter and the proactive censorship of an entire population of people with very little power by a government -- both functionally and philosophically.

Trump can summon a press conference 24/7 and have his message broadcast to the entire world. He controls publication on multiple personal and government websites. What comparable publication powers do the people of Uganda have besides social media?

The impact of censorship is only relevant in the context of power.

Post reply on HN