Myanmar's New Military Government is Now Blocking Twitter and Instagram (techcrunch.com) 65
Myanmar's new military government has ordered local telecom operators, internet gateways, and other internet service providers to block Twitter and Instagram in the South Asian country days after imposing a similar blackout on Facebook to ensure "stability" in the Southeast Asian nation. From a report: Norwegian telecom giant Telenor, which is one of the largest telecos in Myanmar, said the government has ordered ISPs to block Twitter and Instagram "until further notice." The directive has "legal basis in Myanmar's telecommunications law," Telenor said, but it is challenging the "necessity and proportionality of the directive in its response to Myanmar Ministry of Transport and Communications, and highlighted the directive's contradiction with international human rights law."
[...] In a statement, a Twitter spokesperson told TechCrunch: "We're deeply concerned about the order to block Internet services in Myanmar. It undermines the public conversation and the rights of people to make their voices heard. The Open Internet is increasingly under threat around the world. We will continue to advocate to end destructive government-led shutdowns. We understand some people across the Asia-Pacific region may also be having trouble accessing Twitter, and we're working to fix it."
[...] In a statement, a Twitter spokesperson told TechCrunch: "We're deeply concerned about the order to block Internet services in Myanmar. It undermines the public conversation and the rights of people to make their voices heard. The Open Internet is increasingly under threat around the world. We will continue to advocate to end destructive government-led shutdowns. We understand some people across the Asia-Pacific region may also be having trouble accessing Twitter, and we're working to fix it."
On a completely unrelated news... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Telega has honed its "bombproof" evasion techniques versus regimes with much more technical capabilities and acumen. The Myanmar rubbernecks stand no chance.
Re: (Score:1)
10 illegally imported walkie-talkies?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Twitter is definitely not pro-open Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out that not enforcing rules turns your site into a haven for racists, incels and pedophiles.
Oddly enough, there is no money in catering to the dregs of society.
If you can't even pretend to be a decent person, you will be ostracized. Online or in meat space.
Shocking!
Everyone is acting... (Score:2)
..like this is a bad thing.
Re:Everyone is acting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is dangerous for the military junta: weaning people off social media stops their exposure to mind-numbing idiocy, and also gives them more time to think about what their country could be without a military junta.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Everyone is acting... (Score:5, Interesting)
It is indeed strange, and is why it feels weird to be right leaning these days. 20 years ago I favored mostly Democrat positions because I've always favored personal liberties, and back then the Republicans and the Christian nanny-state were trying to control everything.
These days the left has become the nanny-state. They are nanny-stating over different issues, but the end result is the same: control for the sake of imposing their idealology.
It reminds me of a description of why Gandalf couldn't wield "The One Ring". Though he would have used the ring's power to enforce "goodness", he would have become a tyrant, and would have mercilessly enforced his righteous views upon the land using the power of the ring.
And so the left as they gained power from rebelling against the right have become the oppressors. In another couple decades the tables will likely turn as people rebel against the left (and then back again, etc), as at the base of it the simple fact is people don't like others telling them how they should act and/or think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gandalf couldn't be the one to carry the one ring because he was basically a demigod, and if he were to become twisted by it then he would make Sauron look like a little bitch.
However, the left isn't trying to stop speech that isn't inciting violence. Frodo could carry the ring for a while because he wasn't greedy, and he had Sam to help keep him on track.
Re: (Score:2)
However, the left isn't trying to stop speech that isn't inciting violence. Frodo could carry the ring for a while because he wasn't greedy, and he had Sam to help keep him on track.
I don't agree. They are trying to stop speech that they consider unacceptable which is much broader than speech which is already illegal.
You may dislike Fox News but they are not inciting violence. And a CNN anchor is arguing that they should be deplatformed. This may not succeed but I find it appalling that main stream journalists have so little respect for the freedom of the press and for freedom of speech. There are many other examples of speech that is not inciting violence which is being censored with
Re: (Score:2)
"I may be wrong since I am not a native English speaker but it does not seem to me that his talk is incitement to violence in a legal sense."
should of course be:
"I may be wrong since I am not a native English speaker but it does not seem to me that his talk is not incitement to violence in a legal sense."
Re: (Score:2)
Gandalf couldn't be the one to carry the one ring because he was basically a demigod, and if he were to become twisted by it then he would make Sauron look like a little bitch.
Gandalf and Sauron were both Maia - the same type of being.
Re: (Score:2)
Jaysus! Until I saw your list of moral panics over the last 60 or so years, I had forgotten how many of them I did.
And still do, mostly.
Re: (Score:1)
Generally speaking, if all of the international mass media is for something, you as an average citizen is fucked.
If they are against something, you should really make an effort to learn about what they're attacking and support it.
Which is why, even though I'm no expert on what's happening in Myanmar, I fully support what their military junta is doing. Especially considering who that 'pro democracy' woman is married to and why they keep promoting her as some kind of saint. Even rotten fish doesn't stink this
Slashdot 15 years ago (Score:2)
Internet censorship? Route around it!
Slashdot today.
I really dislike facebook/twitter/instagram why can't the government shut them down?
Re: (Score:2)
Internet censorship? Route around it!
Slashdot today.
I really dislike facebook/twitter/instagram why can't the government shut them down?
How is this censorship? The Myanmar authorities are just blocking Twitter. People in Myanmar and abroad can still say what they want. Nobody has a right to a platform to speak from. The dissidents in Myanmar can just stand on the street corner and talk to people or build their own Twitter-like platform. ...
Or at least that was one of the arguments I heard why the deplatforming of conservatives and even the takedown of Parler had nothing to do with censorship.
Re: (Score:1)
How is this censorship? The Myanmar authorities are just blocking Twitter. People in Myanmar and abroad can still say what they want. Nobody has a right to a platform to speak from. [...] Or at least that was one of the arguments I heard why the deplatforming of conservatives and even the takedown of Parler had nothing to do with censorship.
You didn't understand what you heard.
Taking Parler off AWS was censorship, but it wasn't about deplatforming people with merely bad or unpopular ideas. It was about deplatforming people with violent ideas, who were specifically immediately promoting violence. And it was about Parler demonstrating the ability to moderate, but then not spending their moderation efforts on those calls to violence.
Was removing Parler censorship? Sure. But it wasn't government censorship, and it was with good reason, with loads
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't understand what you heard.
Taking Parler off AWS was censorship, but it wasn't about deplatforming people with merely bad or unpopular ideas. It was about deplatforming people with violent ideas, who were specifically immediately promoting violence. And it was about Parler demonstrating the ability to moderate, but then not spending their moderation efforts on those calls to violence.
Was removing Parler censorship? Sure. But it wasn't government censorship, and it was with good reason, with loads of warning, and only once it was proven that Parler could have policed their own content if they wanted to, and didn't.
What we're talking about in Myanmar is different in that it is direct government censorship, and reacting not only to calls to violence, but simply to dissent.
Equating the two is false.
How do you know what I heard? Please enlighten me. I read numerous proponents of deplatforming argue that it was not censorship.
Furthermore the Myanmar government is obviously also imposing censorship because they want to prevent being dethroned again ultimately by violence. And why should direct government censorship be worse than direct corporate censorship?
And I am by the way not equating the two situations. They are obviously different. My point is simply that some people argue that what happened in the
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know what I heard?
From what you said.
My point is simply that some people argue that what happened in the USA was not censorship. And I fundamentally disagree with that assertion.
Sure, it is fundamentally censorship, because the right to free speech is not absolute. If you're using it to do direct harm, it's already clearly not protected by law in that case.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it is fundamentally censorship, because the right to free speech is not absolute. If you're using it to do direct harm, it's already clearly not protected by law in that case.
False. Direct harm is not a valid reason for speech to become unprotected. The rules for that are much narrower.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know what I heard?
From what you said.
Why are you lying? Or are you just too dumb to understand what I wrote?
Hey look, actual insurrection. (Score:3, Insightful)
Turns out armed military storming the capital and shutting down communications is what an insurrection looks like, not photo ops with vikings and walking out with door prizes as the police look on, while communications cancels you...
How kind of the Myanmar military to provide such a timely contrast.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Being bad a crime doesn't make what you did not illegal.
Imagine if Trump had SA Brown Shirts instead of QAnon lunatics.
Thankfully, a fuck load of military higher-ups (Joint Chiefs) publicly reminded people that they swear an oath to the constitution not Mango Mussolini. [cnbc.com]
Here's the score so far.
Oh, and since I'm not a lawyer, maybe you'd prefer one to break it down for you. [youtube.com]
(BONUS: My favorite part from the video above. [youtu.be])
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the score so far.
Was supposed to be this. [nytimes.com]
I mean, why allow post edits after 20+ years?
Re: (Score:1)
Being bad a crime doesn't make what you did not illegal.
Something being illegal does not make it an entirely different kind of crime just because you say it does.
Imagine if Trump had SA Brown Shirts instead of QAnon lunatics.
One of the guys arrested was left-wing BLM [foxnews.com], so I guess that makes you a co-ringleader of this circus.
Myself I'm a libertarian so I'm not really connected to the whole thing at all, the way you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They're both insurrection. Just that the Myanmar version is successful. (For now.)
These things happen (Score:2)
In Soviet America .... (Score:3)
I was expecting it (Score:2)
Probably the only good thing they have ever done. (Score:2)
What About US? (Score:1)
what is our military government going to do about the twitterverse?
Re: (Score:2)
Blocking is OK when Social Media does it... (Score:2)
Curious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain why internet-based companies should be forced to transmit any and all messages while TV, radio, and print media should not.
TV / radio / print media is limited in airtime / paper size. Meanwhile those big social media web sites are with virtually unlimited storage space (unless one spam it with tons of auto-generated garbage of course). I don't think any people are forcing them to transmit illegal messages. But the current trend of demonizing hate / violence is bad to freedom and democracy. Authoritarian tyrannical states won't break down spontaneously. It need a spread of information of their evil-doing (which "incite hate") a
And ... (Score:2)
Isn't that what page 1 of "The Little Coup Colonel Handbook" says to do first?
The revised version, the old version mentioned radio and TV-Stations.
I just don't get the fake surprise.
News (Score:2)
If Twitter doesn't like it... (Score:2)
If Twitter doesn't like it then why don't they build their own internet backbone? Nobody is stopping them.
Re: (Score:2)
Within their legal rights, sure. Whatever legal means during a coup.
Within human rights, nah.
The hypocrisy (Score:2)
Most of the internet shut down now. (Score:2)
Apparently they escalated their shutdown: https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
But the people are in the streets using their Mk 1 mouths, eyeballs and pans. Some civil servants are on strike. In short, the military are discovering people could resist a coup before the Internet. And talk to each other for real.