4 ms·

"Uganda is one of the poorest nations in the world. In 2012, 37.8 percent of the population lived on less than $1.25 a day."[1] So if you are making $100K per y

by comboy 8y ago

"Uganda is one of the poorest nations in the world. In 2012, 37.8 percent of the population lived on less than $1.25 a day."[1] So if you are making $100K per year, this tax would be equivalent to giving away $40K of that for using social media. Context matters. I don't know anything about Uganda, but maybe different political situation is causing them to use social media more as unbiased news sources rather than discussing dress colors. If you feel like this kind of tax would benefit you, then you can likely arrange it, on your own, or with a help of some 3rd party and send X to charity for each day when you checked the social media (HN counts right? gov said it counts - so it counts, no discussion). Unrelated but I think the strategy above is not a good one if you want to spend less time using social media. For me just sitting back and thinking what do you really want works best. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda#Economy_and_infrastructure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda#Economy_and_infrastruct...

tern 8y ago
I find it somewhat difficult to believe that Facebook or Twitter could in any sense be called an "unbiased news source", but if there are no trustworthy publications in Uganda, then I could see that perhaps whatever discourse happens there might be a net good.
tmpz22 8y ago
I think you skewed your math. If you live on $1.25 in Uganda and spend $0.05 per day you will be spending %4 of your "daily spend" on social media. In the United States [1] the average spend is $154 per day equating to a $6.16 social media tax... or about the cost the average bay area tech employee spends on coffee per day. Thats adds up to $2,248 NOT $40,000 per year... I would support this tax in the U.S. (as long as a large percentage is legally required to go to education, medical, and social services). I probably would not support taxation in Uganda targeted at the lower or middle class though. [1]: https://www.quora.com/On-how-many-dollars-does-the-average-American-live-off-of-each-day https://www.quora.com/On-how-many-dollars-does-the-average-A...
- comboy 8y ago
  Yes, I counted for $0.5 not $0.05, so I got 40% instead of 4%. Big difference, I'm sorry.
  - natecavanaugh 8y ago
    While the math does distract from the overall point a little, I think you're right in that context matters. If the the government (or private corporations) made a Social Network package that blocked access to any social networking sites unless you pay an extra 4k per year (or raising it by 333 dollars per month, we'd all be having a heart attack. Even if we used the more common avg of salaries and said 4% of 50k per year, just to go on Facebook, you gotta believe people are gonna be enraged.
    - tmpz22 8y ago
      FWIW I agree people would be enraged initially. But I believe shortly after they'd realize "hey I don't really need this". And the world would be a better place for it.
      - pavelludiq 8y ago
        I know multiple minimum wage workers who nonetheless spend a significant portion of their income on tobacco products, all of them taxed at enormous percentages. Taxation is literally the worst addiction cure in existence with 0 evidence that it works(and quite a bit of evidence that it does not and disproportionately hurts the poor). "hey I don't really need this" is such a naive westie hipster take at it's not even funny. People do actually need social media, poor people and underprivileged communities especially. Your relative is working abroad? You need social media, your community suffers from serious corruption, you need social media. Natural disasters happen in your area often? You need social media. You need to find someone to barter with for old used items because you have no credit card access? social media can help you. You work in the city and need to make your way back home to the country on weekends? Car pooling groups are a life saver. Social media globally is a tremendous net benefit to humanity. Just because the biggest ones are run by horrible SV oligarchs and infested with state security unscrupulous spammers and that some users can't seem to keep their face out of their phone doesn't mean the thing is bad, just that it has costs. This is such a blatantly obvious social control and fund raising scheme not meant to actually help anyone, I'm confused how supposedly well educated thinking people can think it's a good idea in the benefit of it's victims.

by comboy 8y ago

tern 8y ago

I find it somewhat difficult to believe that Facebook or Twitter could in any sense be called an "unbiased news source", but if there are no trustworthy publications in Uganda, then I could see that perhaps whatever discourse happens there might be a net good.

tmpz22 8y ago

I think you skewed your math. If you live on $1.25 in Uganda and spend $0.05 per day you will be spending %4 of your "daily spend" on social media. In the United States [1] the average spend is $154 per day equating to a $6.16 social media tax... or about the cost the average bay area tech employee spends on coffee per day. Thats adds up to $2,248 NOT $40,000 per year... I would support this tax in the U.S. (as long as a large percentage is legally required to go to education, medical, and social services). I probably would not support taxation in Uganda targeted at the lower or middle class though. [1]: https://www.quora.com/On-how-many-dollars-does-the-average-American-live-off-of-each-day https://www.quora.com/On-how-many-dollars-does-the-average-A...

comboy 8y ago
Yes, I counted for $0.5 not $0.05, so I got 40% instead of 4%. Big difference, I'm sorry.
- natecavanaugh 8y ago
  While the math does distract from the overall point a little, I think you're right in that context matters. If the the government (or private corporations) made a Social Network package that blocked access to any social networking sites unless you pay an extra 4k per year (or raising it by 333 dollars per month, we'd all be having a heart attack. Even if we used the more common avg of salaries and said 4% of 50k per year, just to go on Facebook, you gotta believe people are gonna be enraged.
  - tmpz22 8y ago
    FWIW I agree people would be enraged initially. But I believe shortly after they'd realize "hey I don't really need this". And the world would be a better place for it.
    - pavelludiq 8y ago
      I know multiple minimum wage workers who nonetheless spend a significant portion of their income on tobacco products, all of them taxed at enormous percentages. Taxation is literally the worst addiction cure in existence with 0 evidence that it works(and quite a bit of evidence that it does not and disproportionately hurts the poor). "hey I don't really need this" is such a naive westie hipster take at it's not even funny. People do actually need social media, poor people and underprivileged communities especially. Your relative is working abroad? You need social media, your community suffers from serious corruption, you need social media. Natural disasters happen in your area often? You need social media. You need to find someone to barter with for old used items because you have no credit card access? social media can help you. You work in the city and need to make your way back home to the country on weekends? Car pooling groups are a life saver. Social media globally is a tremendous net benefit to humanity. Just because the biggest ones are run by horrible SV oligarchs and infested with state security unscrupulous spammers and that some users can't seem to keep their face out of their phone doesn't mean the thing is bad, just that it has costs. This is such a blatantly obvious social control and fund raising scheme not meant to actually help anyone, I'm confused how supposedly well educated thinking people can think it's a good idea in the benefit of it's victims.