Getting Afghanistan Online 182
Velcroman1 writes "Imagine living in a country where only 3.5 percent of the population use the Internet. When you ask a neighbor about Facebook, they give you a confused look. Posting a status update on Twitter is a foreign concept, and most citizens still rely on printed newspapers and radio reports. That's life in Afghanistan today, where only 1.5 million people (out of 30M) have Internet access. A new National Social Media Summit intends to change that trend. To be held September 22 to 23 in Kabul, and featuring some 200 speakers, the event will promote the use of social media as a way to not only discuss current news, but to make news. The summit, called Paiwand (or Unity), aims to boost Net use further. It will break out into several themes including social media and government transparency, new media trends and emerging tech."
Prime Directive (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh the humanity! (Score:5, Insightful)
Posting a status update on Twitter is a foreign concept
(silently wipes a tear away from his eye)
Also, twitter being an American company, is foreign to damn near ALL countries. As a concept, it's still weird to most Americans even.
Re:Tempting (Score:5, Insightful)
well the local newspaper is as good as the local tribal leader lets it to be.
in other words it's pure shit. that's why getting them online matters. that's why getting everyone online matters.
because that's the a way to get them out of their highly localized dictatorship dystopias. now their life is just what the local guy with most guns and dope for his gunmen wants it to be(and unfortunately those guys aren't very industrious - and making things better for their community would make them have less power...).
Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tempting (Score:3, Insightful)
well the local newspaper is as good as the local tribal leader lets it to be.
This is true. Whether the local tribal leader is named Jamaludin Badr or Rupert Murdoch.
Re:Tempting (Score:5, Insightful)
Except Ropert Murdoch has no means to compel you to stay away from competing publishers — neither by banning the competitors nor by prohibiting you to buy their wares.
And that is the key difference between a government-provided service (whether it is news, education, health care, food, shelter, or entertainment) and a privately-provided one.
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving people the ability to connect to world and understand people from other parts of it is key to peace just about anywhere? When you understand that people are people everywhere, it's far more difficult to get the general populace revved up against some great enemy. People fear the unknown and in the absence of contrary evidence, anything can be said. Now granted, it may have a more limited impact since the Internet itself is perceived as Western, but having people be able to communicate more freely is rarely a bad thing when it comes to trying to prevent popular support for attacking others.
Re:Tempting (Score:3, Insightful)
People want entertainment. "Made up news" certainly fits. Michael Moore's "documentaries" were anything but, for another example. Though his international awards were in the "fiction" categories, he got rave reviews — and millions of viewers — anyway.
They seem to be doing fine whatever label you put on them.
I wish, you did — and concentrated on the point I'm making, which is, once again, that government ought not to provide non-governmental services. Never. Not even when the non-governmental providers are personally unpleasant and unscrupulous.