Papua New Guinea’s government has shut down social media platform Facebook, in what it describes as a “test” to mitigate hate speech, misinformation, pornography and “other detrimental content”.
The test, conducted under the country’s anti-terrorism laws, began on Monday morning and has extended into Tuesday.
Facebook users in the country have been unable to log-in to the platform and it is unclear how long the ban will go on for.
The government’s move was not flagged ahead of the “test” on Monday — a move opposition MPs and media leaders have described as “tyranny” and an “abuse of human rights”.
Facebook is by far the most popular social media platform in the country, with an estimated 1.3 million users, or about half of the country’s estimated 2.6 million internet users.
The platform is a critical tool for public discourse in the country, with many highly active forums used to discuss PNG politics and social issues.
Yet, the government has been highly critical of Facebook with the platform often blamed for helping spread misinformation, particularly in light of a recent spate of tribal killings in the country.
The platform is a critical tool for public discourse in the country, with many highly active forums used to discuss PNG politics and social issues.
There is your fucking problem. Stop fucking centralizing an entire countries discourse to a corporate propaganda platform.
Especially a foreign social media company with algorithm that isn’t transparent and has the power to block whatever users and posts they want to push the desired narrative. Its not a free and open platform but a propaganda tool of a single billionaire.
I remember as kid I thought adults could be looked up to and had wisdom.
Normally, I see any news on government blocking social media for any stated reasons as typically a cover for censorship. But with how Facebook and other social media morphed into something else, I could not care less if they are blocked.
I want to celebrate this, but it’s hard not to see it as an attempt at authoritarianism. I think the right way to do a Facebook ban is to ensure people have access to a good alternative (like Mastodon) before pulling the plug.
To shut down pornography they might have to block 1 or 2 more websites … at least.
Do people use Facebook for porn? Like, on their personal accounts? That’s weird.
The reels and ads they shove in my face are often very scantily clad women. I could see a country/culture with different values getting real upset about that.
Not sure how Porn = Terrorism. Sounds like mission creep to me… Oh well, I guess it makes a change from using Anti-Terror laws to stop people putting the wrong things in wheelie bins: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3333366/Half-of-councils-use-anti-terror-laws-to-spy-on-bin-crimes.html
The shut down Facebook? All of it?
Or did they simply block it in their country?
What, you expect journalists to use the correct words to unambiguously convey a concept?
Sure, Papua New Guinea said no, but what did Momma New Guinea say?
There’s pornography on Facebook! That’s disgusting! Someone let me know where so I can be sure to avoid it…
What porn? Girls in bikinis?
Worse. Bare. Ankles.
Hussies!
Yeah I’m not sure Facebook is what I’d be worried about for porn.
Remember when Myanmar happened on Facebook because they all thought Facebook was the entire internet.
Zuck was in the mud then.
Misinformation and hate speech on Facebook, sure, but pornography?
It’s pornography speech.
This just reeks of control.
Maybe, but it’s an onion of a problem.
We all know how much FB spreads disinfo and brain rot. The positive effect of disabling it feels as significant as the negative effect on freedom of speech.
The dichotomy is very much analogous to how I feel about tiktok bans.
Is it really a problem for freedom of speech, if it’s only a platform getting banned and not specific content?
If you are allowed to talk about anything still everywhere else on the web, I can’t see the freedom of speech card being valid in this case about FB.
FB is already controlling what you see, making freedom of speech better without them.
Look at what’s really happening though: the state is implicitly saying you can have free expression provided your reach is miniscule/ineffectual. The moment you get traction is the moment it will move to block use of your preferred platforms, or simply hard-/algorithmically ban you - it’s functionally identical to suppression of speech/association
They rely on the public’s credulity when they insist freedoms are intact because ‘only one website’ is verboten. It’s a dirty exploit. In reality, all platform denial should be protested
I agree that Facebook completely sucks, but I disagree that banning any service is worth it from a freedom of speech perspective. Once you let your country ban services it doesn’t like, it’s one bad administration from banning services critical of it. Don’t go down that road.
Agreed. One layer of the onion peeled. Next layer is that all of the content you see is curated and you only are fed fits your profile as dictated by the algorithm. You are served more dopamine hits and churn a lot of nothing.
There’s another layer of the onion next. Let’s hear what it is.
Sure, and I bailed on Facebook and Meta products long ago because I found their services insidious. I still don’t trust a government to decide which services to ban though.
