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

Nepal Bans 26 Social Media Platforms, Including Facebook and YouTube

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 151 posts

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

#91

Post by cosmic_cheese »

nutanc wrote: post #88

Other than the obvious discussions around free speech(very valid points), do we have any real studies on the actual effects of social media? What if social media platforms didn't exist. Would the world have been a better place? I don't know the answer, but atleast from my observations it feels as if almost every country in the world has moved to the right but by bit. We have moved away from globalization and are into…

I don’t think it’s a coincedence that both social media and conservatism thrive on viral fear and outrage. The two are most certainly connected.

The world would probably be a very different place today if instead hope and joy were the bread and butter of Twitter, Reddit, etc.

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

#92

Post by OrvalWintermute »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #80
ffjffsfr wrote: post #27

People in the west are so used to freedom of speech and so focused on problems with social media. They miss the fact, that many authoritarian governments in Asia see freedom of speech in social media as a threat. They are not banning Facebook to improve quality of life, they want to limit freedom of speech.

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 where he was on the political spectrum or anything; he was leading with this issue.

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

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

#93

Post by isaacremuant »

mkleczek wrote: post #77
isaacremuant wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anonymity is not a prerequisite to freedom of speech. That's disingenous bullshit. From the likes of people who use their power imbalance to pretend their propaganda is truth and dissent is dangerous. "Freedom of speech is ok but what you're doing is different" is the first step > Broken lives of people harassed by anonymous trolls on social media are the dark side of anonymity. You only need to pay attention to hi…

Democracy for quite some time thrived in US (and for some shorter time in other western countries) even though there was no anonymity while free speech was guaranteed by the state. In other words: anonymity is not a solution for lack of free speech. I should be free to say whatever I want without being forced to hide behind a nickname. Secondly: I think you are happy to not being the target of online violence. I have…

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.

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

#94

Post by mopenstein »

owisd wrote: post #21
SilverElfin wrote: post #2

Sad to see anti free speech sentiments all over the world. It was constrained to only some areas but now it’s normalized even in places like the UK. I guess with all that’s happening, Nepal doesn’t surprise me.

Free speech existed before social media, so banning social media can't be any less free speech than how things were then. Also the USA has for decades been an outlier in taking an extreme interpretation of free speech that considers, say, Fox News an acceptable use of free speech. Plenty of countries where the regulator would find Fox News unacceptable rank higher than the USA on freedom & democracy indices, so there…

Freedom of speech existed before almost everything. Before the wheel, before the airplane, before newspapers, before radio and TV, and even before pen and paper. I wonder how much less free we'd feel if those things were banned as well?

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

#95

Post by coffeefirst »

perching_aix wrote: post #4

I'm doing basically the same, but voluntarily. It's a calmer life. YouTube is still going strong for me though, I have to admit.

Yeah. YouTube being both effectively the modern public airwaves and dictated by an engagement algorithm is a big problem.

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

#96

Post by DaSHacka »

DangitBobby wrote: post #13
sonicggg wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironic to read about free speech here where a bunch of stuff gets "[flagged]" when it does not agree with the hive mind.

Lol. Every fucking forum has people constantly bellyache about the moderation systems. Hivemind is a dead giveaway for thoughtless criticism. It's so tiresome. If it's flagged on HN it's almost always lowest common denominator mindless drivel or flamebait. No one serious would advocate for a system where comments can't be flagged as such.

You should enable showdead in your user preferences, I think you may be surprised to see what gets flagged.

I think the big issue is new accounts aren't allowed to downvote posts, but can flag them. In effect, the "flag" merely becomes the new downvote, leading to unpopular but relatively high-efffort coments becoming dead and invisible rather than downvoted.

Honestly just switching the two around (anyone can downvote, but only 500+ karma can flag) would go a long way to ensure only actual low-effort posts and spam get flagged, and unpopular posts get downvoted. As it is now, I rarely see an unpopular opinion that was downvoted and isn't already flagged.

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

#97

Post by jerome-jh »

nutanc wrote: post #88

Other than the obvious discussions around free speech(very valid points), do we have any real studies on the actual effects of social media? What if social media platforms didn't exist. Would the world have been a better place? I don't know the answer, but atleast from my observations it feels as if almost every country in the world has moved to the right but by bit. We have moved away from globalization and are into…

Social media platforms are no more closed circles. They are platforms for advertisers and "click fishers". And people engage with content which revolt them.

As a consequence social platforms, and low quality newspapers, have converged to show the bad news from all over the world. There is no shortage of them. This affects people's morale, confidence. Have you noticed how people you talk to can be very concerned about seemingly minor events that occurred on the other side of the world, to which they cannot change anything, and which should not change anything in their life?

Turns out today I have cut access to Youtube, Google Play to my 12 years old daughter. Internet is limited to a whitelist of sites, with only Wikipedia for now. She had turned phone addict in an unmanageable way. Blame Youtube and Tiktok. Unfortunately she needs a smartphone for school, she would otherwise have a dumb phone.

Of course there is wonderful content on Youtube. But the "shorts" is a literal trap for kids. As for the adults (well, me) it is just painful to see the list of trending videos, such that I seldom go and never stay. This is a stinky place. Ask the dictator in me and I would say blocking Youtube makes more good than bad.

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

#98

Post by DaSHacka »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #23
sonicggg wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironic to read about free speech here where a bunch of stuff gets "[flagged]" when it does not agree with the hive mind.

https://xkcd.com/1357/

"Its free speech when I talk, but if you, someone who says things I disagree with talks, then you're merely an asshole being shown the door"

I wonder what his opinion on pro-Palestinians getting banned on twitter is? Is it different then? What about the canning of Stephen Colbert?

I love these smug posts about how "free speech as a concept only applies to the government censoring people" that were made a couple years ago, where now the same figures are unbelievably opposed to sites like Twitter "excercising their right" to ban dissidents.

Turns out this free speech thing might be a pretty useful ability to have, huh?

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

#99

Post by SilverElfin »

exe34 wrote: post #33
SilverElfin wrote: post #2

Sad to see anti free speech sentiments all over the world. It was constrained to only some areas but now it’s normalized even in places like the UK. I guess with all that’s happening, Nepal doesn’t surprise me.

this one has nothing to do with free speech though. they want to know who's providing the megaphone. they requested for a named employee to be responsible for what the business chooses to do in their country.

That’s the strategy Brazil used to stop free speech. They then arrest whoever the representative is when they don’t comply with government censorship.

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

#100

Post by mkleczek »

seneca wrote: post #86
mkleczek wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anonymity is not a prerequisite to freedom of speech. Broken lives of people harassed by anonymous trolls on social media are the dark side of anonymity. Freedom must be accompanied by responsibility and accountability.

> 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 saying "freedom needs to come with punishments and restrictions when you do things I don't like". It's an oxymoron.

It is not bout things _I_ don't like but things that _we (society)_ don't like. In my country nazi symbols are forbidden in public space and I think it is a good thing. So yes - "freedom needs to come with punishments and restrictions".

> The responsibilities a free populace have are moral and civil, they aren't about giving away anonymity to governments.

Why not? There are countries which governments are elected by citizens and are _trusted_ by citizens. Why would I want to be anonymous if I _trust_ people I elected?

Post reply on HN