3 ms·
It just goes to show that governments are going to censor when they feel like it. If your only contact with someone is through social media then you'd have no w
by Mirioron 8y ago
It just goes to show that governments are going to censor when they feel like it. If your only contact with someone is through social media then you'd have no way to contact them to find out if they're okay.
On the other hand, I can understand short term temporary shutdowns to try to stop further violence, but that's not what Sri Lanka is doing in this case.
- save_ferris 8y ago"Last year, the government briefly blocked social networks after viral rumors and calls to violence, circulating largely on Facebook, appeared to provoke a wave of anti-Muslim riots and lynchings. Government officials had repeatedly warned Facebook, which also owns Instagram and WhatsApp, that the posts could lead to violence." Sri Lanka isn't trying prevent people from communicating with each other or censorship. Sounds like they've been bitten by social media-driven violence in the past, which wouldn't be the first country to see this phenomenon (Myanmar). It's so easy to assume a corrupt government motive here, but we've seen ethnic violence perpetuated on social media in the past. What's a government supposed to do when that happens?
- galimaufry 8y agoMyanmar is not a typical example: social media drove violence, but social media was being manipulated by the army: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
- Mirioron 8y ago>What's a government supposed to do when that happens? If people perpetuate ethnic violence through cell phones, does the government ban phones? If people perpetuate ethnic violence through speaking, will the government ban speaking?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]