Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uganda bans social media ahead of election

dw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of election

#61

Post by kube-system »

johndevor wrote: post #22
twelfthnight wrote: post #17

This doesn't look good for Twitter, but comparing blocking an entire country from social media a few days before an election and blocking a few leaders who have clear ties to inciting violent riots via conspiracy theories seems like a false equivalence. Instead of justifying censorship as "good" or "bad" in some essential fashion, I think it's important to be clear about the context. EDIT: In fact, Twitter has done m…

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

Every large platform selectively enforces rules. The squeakiest wheels get the grease. The Twitter firehose is a notoriously large amount of data; difficult for computers to parse, and impossible for a human to review unless brought to their attention. I don't think it's fair to automatically attribute it to malice.

Also, not sure I'm following what that link is supposed to demonstrate. Twitter has no power to censor cable news networks.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of election

#62

Post by shruubi »

Some part of me feels like a ban on social media during an election period is not all that bad. The US has proven to the entire world that people can't be trusted to act civilised and honestly discuss issues, and that lack of trust extends from the highest levels of government down to the average citizen.

That's not to say I am advocating the suppression of speech. All people should be free to speak about corruption and misinformation. But the last twelve months or so have, at least to me, shown that most people would rather burn the public square to the ground than speak of corruption and misinformation. And it does make me wonder what elections would be like in all countries if, at least for the campaign and election period, sites like Twitter were just outright banned.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of election

#63

Post by LordFast »

slothtrop wrote: post #56
LordFast wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump wasn't banned before the elections. He wasn't banned after Charlottesville, and then wasn't banned for 3.5 more years while he continued to undermine American institutions. He was only banned after refusing to accept the election results and inciting insurrection with conspiracies. People are /really/ reaching for something that isn't there. To be clear, I don't think Twitter is "the good guy", but the comments…

This after repeatedly violating rules that tend to get other uses banned.

Twitter always said they had more lenient rules for world leaders, and that part makes sense, since anyone that is an elected public official needs to communicate with the public and sometimes talk about controversial topics.

But if that elected official is refusing to accept the same system that elected them in the first place, then that's a logical dead-end and no amount of reasoning will do any good, or even matter in that case. Without the framework of elections, there is no such thing as an elected official.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of election

#64

Post by curlyQueue »

twelfthnight wrote: post #27
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Double standards are bad. Principles should matter more than your biases.

I'm trying to make the case in my comment above that I don't believe the situations are equivalent and thus there is no double standard. (You can of course disagree with this and I'd be interested in your argument) There is one standard for leaders who promote documented conspiracy theories and another for blocking an entire country's access to social media in an effort to alter the outcome of an election.

Feel compelled to provide context on a double-standard, here are just a few counter examples of leaders in US politics who have, with their speech, “promoted conspiracy theories” and “incited violence” with no measures taken to make them accountable for their words. While no person, country or company is perfect... maybe Uganda witnessed this and decided to take a more formal position, like BigTech decided:

- Stacey Abrams claimed election fraud and was never censored on social media.

- "protesters should not let up," - "This is a movement, I’m telling you, they’re not going to stop, and everyone beware, because they’re not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not going to stop after Election Day," she said. "And everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up, and they should not, and we should not." - Vice-president elect Kamala Harris

- "there needs to be unrest in the streets." - - "You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives." - Rep. Ayanna Pressley

- "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere." - "You think we’re rallying now? You ain’t seen nothing yet," - "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere," - Rep. Maxine Waters

Probably more.. something to consider.

“You Americans are gullible. We’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands”. — Nikita Kruschev

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of election

#65

Post by reb »

solidasparagus wrote: post #38
reb wrote: 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.

Point taken!

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of election

#66

Post by johndevor »

tmpz22 wrote: post #40
johndevor wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Are you saying the personal comments of a MSNBC reporter are equivalent to the personal comments of a sitting US president or Senator?

No. I'm saying that leftwing violence is distributed. Rightwing is centralized. The radical left is smart. There's no head antifa leader. Doesn't mean antifa is any less dangerous, I might argue more dangerous because there's no head to the hydra.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of election

#67

Post by tmpz22 »

johndevor wrote: post #66
tmpz22 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying the personal comments of a MSNBC reporter are equivalent to the personal comments of a sitting US president or Senator?

No. I'm saying that leftwing violence is distributed. Rightwing is centralized. The radical left is smart. There's no head antifa leader. Doesn't mean antifa is any less dangerous, I might argue more dangerous because there's no head to the hydra.

Are you making the argument that there are coordinated, yet distributed, Antifa cells spread across America that pose a greater or equal threat then:

1) the mob that stormed the capitol building with threats to kill and kidnap US congressmen, senators, and the VP?

2) the several dozen Michigan militia members currently indicted for attempting to kidnap the governor of Michigan

3) the texas commuters who attempted to steer the Biden/Harris campaign bus off the highway

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of election

#68

Post by vkou »

dcolkitt wrote: post #48
solidasparagus wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Having a reputation for being a neutral haven for electoral fraud and calls to violence isn't exactly a great thing to aspire to. (Falsely claiming an election is illegitimate, refusing to recognize its results, threatening election officials into awarding you a victory, and stopping its certification is, in fact, a form of electoral fraud.)

It's unfortunate that a major political movement in the US has aligned itself in support of those two things, but having done so, it forced Twitter's hand.

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of election

#69

Post by ImamBayildi »

onethought wrote: post #21
tosh wrote: post #2

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

It wasn’t and isn’t unthinkable in most of the world. “Free Speech” is an US thing. It pretty much doesn’t exist anywhere else as a right, and never has.

What about in Canada, Germany, England, France, India, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Spain, Italy, etc?

Re: Uganda bans social media ahead of election

#70

Post by derptron »

tmpz22 wrote: post #40
johndevor wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Are you saying the personal comments of a MSNBC reporter are equivalent to the personal comments of a sitting US president or Senator?

Are you saying rules should be selectively enforced based on class?
Post reply on HN