Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks Government

France Bans TikTok In New Caledonia (politico.eu) 48

In what's marked as an EU first, the French government has blocked TikTok in its territory of New Caledonia amid widespread pro-independence protests. Politico reports: A French draft law, passed Monday, would let citizens vote in local elections after 10 years' residency in New Caledonia, prompting opposition from independence activists worried it will dilute the representation of indigenous people. The violent demonstrations that have ensued in the South Pacific island of 270,000 have killed at least five people and injured hundreds. In response to the protests, the government suspended the popular video-sharing app -- owned by Beijing-based ByteDance and favored by young people -- as part of state-of-emergency measures alongside the deployment of troops and an initial 12-day curfew.

French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal didn't detail the reasons for shutting down the platform. The local telecom regulator began blocking the app earlier on Wednesday. "It is regrettable that an administrative decision to suspend TikTok's service has been taken on the territory of New Caledonia, without any questions or requests to remove content from the New Caledonian authorities or the French government," a TikTok spokesperson said. "Our security teams are monitoring the situation very closely and ensuring that our platform remains safe for our users. We are ready to engage in discussions with the authorities."

Digital rights NGO Quadrature du Net on Friday contested the TikTok suspension with France's top administrative court over a "particularly serious blow to freedom of expression online." A growing number of authoritarian regimes worldwide have resorted to internet shutdowns to stifle dissent. This unexpected -- and drastic -- decision by France's center-right government comes amid a rise in far-right activism in Europe and a regression on media freedom. "France's overreach establishes a dangerous precedent across the globe. It could reinforce the abuse of internet shutdowns, which includes arbitrary blocking of online platforms by governments around the world," said Eliska Pirkova, global freedom of expression lead at Access Now.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

France Bans TikTok In New Caledonia

Comments Filter:
  • Someone discovered a relationship between gasoline and flammable materials!

  • by trenien ( 974611 ) on Friday May 17, 2024 @06:59PM (#64480339)
    It would be much more accurate to call it Far-Center. It might be counter-intuitive, but it does describe something very specific : a government made up of so-called technocrats who hate nothing more than democracy (i.e. debate, consultation, compromise and so on are anathema).

    Of course these self-described geniuses are the very reason for the riots in New Caledonia. When back in 2021 they were asked to postpone by a few months the third (and last) referendum about independence because of COVID, they refused, leading to no more than around 43% turn-out ( the second referendum had over 80%). And now, rather than negotiating the way forward with those who want independence (around 50% of the locals, Natives and later arrivals) they buldoze this law through (with the help of the Far Right MPs).

    • It would be much more accurate to call it Far-Center. It might be counter-intuitive, but it does describe something very specific : a government made up of so-called technocrats who hate nothing more than democracy

      Indeed, they are the center, hence in their own view they are balanced and moderate. Everyone else is an extremist, this is why there is no place for discussion.

    • by test321 ( 8891681 ) on Friday May 17, 2024 @07:44PM (#64480411)

      When back in 2021 they were asked to postpone by a few months the third (and last) referendum about independence because of COVID, they refused, leading to no more than around 43% turn-out ( the second referendum had over 80%).

      What you are not saying: the pro-independence party are the ones who called the third referendum (as it is their right according to the 1998 Noumea Accord), then changed their minds (during the COVID situation due to, in their view, the need to mourn their dead). The problem is the Noumea Accord does not include provisions for France postponing the referendum. Whatever the result of a delayed referendum, the losing party would contest the result in highest courts, arguing France violated the Noumea Agreement, in a way that never can be corrected (since it would be obviously too late to repeat the referendum at the correct date in the past, and there is no provision for a fourth one).

      The half lower turnout resulted from a boycott from the pro-independence party (following their dissatisfaction with the date), while the pro-Union showed up normally.

      And now, rather than negotiating the way forward with those who want independence

      How exactly do you want them to negotiate? It's either independence or it is not. The referendum provided a result: Union, and consequences need to be taken. The situation previous to the referendum was a democratic anomaly. The Noumea Accord specified that the referendums would be taken after a number of years, but keeping the same voting population. Therefore citizen who had joined the island after 1998 were deprived from right to vote leading to ever ageing and shrinking voting population and really an anomaly.

      The new version of the law limits right to vote to people established in the island for longer than 10 years, still making it a democratic anomaly, but at least making it sustainable for the decades to come, until any future agreement can be reached.

      The whole situation is certainly regrettable and we wish it could have been solved to everyone's satisfaction regarding the date of the referendum. But the fact is the pro-independence formally asked France tor organize the referendum and then retract without any formal right to do so, and that's not the fault of France.

    • a government made up of so-called technocrats who hate nothing more than democracy (i.e. debate, consultation, compromise and so on are anathema).

            What is so alarming is that there are a surprisingly large proportion of Americans who think the same way, and see it as some ideal solution - utterly incompatible with foundational principles.

    • It's doubtful that postponing the third referendum (which there was no method described to allow for so doing that invalidates it just as much) would have changed anything. The prior two referendums both were against independence and there's no reason for me to legitimately believe the third would have been any different. The losing side just doesn't want to accept the results and this is the barest grasp at trying to have an appearance of legitimacy.

      France should take a different approach though. Just s
      • by trenien ( 974611 )
        Indeed : it was getting closer, but there was some likelyhood of a pro-remain victory.

        Except that it would had been entirely within the scope of the Noumea Accord, and fully legitimate (not just legal, as things stand now).

  • Now how will we get our regular cultural reports from the crew of PT-73?

  • All the bans are to "protect the children" when it really is about suppressing free speech and people's ability to communicate and share ideas freely. It does not matter what form of communication we humans use, we will find a way to squeeze in every aspect of humanity in to it. Good and bad
  • "let citizens vote in local elections after 10 years' residency in New Caledonia, prompting opposition from independence activists worried it will dilute the representation of indigenous people." wait... what? Aren't indigenous people by definition the people who live there? Shouldn't any actual indigene have well over 10 years of residency by the time they're eligible to vote?

Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically.

Working...