Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Twitter Censorship Crime Facebook Government Social Networks

Bangladesh Extends Social Media Ban, Blocking Twitter and Skype ( 44

An anonymous reader writes: A month after temporarily blocking social media sites including Facebook and WhatsApp, the Bangladeshi government has now taken steps to take down online chat software Skype and social networking service Twitter. The decision came after a supreme court ruling which sentenced two opposition leaders to death, having found them guilty of crimes committed in the 1971 war of independence from Pakistan. The ruling rejected petitions to review the war criminals' death sentences. It divided the country, with many strongly protesting the decision. The social media ban is seen as a way to control any attempt at mass mobilization among dissidents.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bangladesh Extends Social Media Ban, Blocking Twitter and Skype

Comments Filter:
  • I believe that Facebook, and other third-party-edited-for-you content, will be seen by governments as attempting to sway the opinions of their citizens. And -- I don't think they're wrong.

    • Of course you are not wrong, which is why freedom of speech (and the press -- the means of mass production and distribution of speech) are in the First Amendment of the US. Governments will censor to remain in power.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        If only the US constitution were still valid and in effect.

  • by turkeydance ( 1266624 ) on Monday December 14, 2015 @06:38PM (#51117757)
    that comment section is sort of risky.
  • And nothing, repeat NOTHING of value was lost.

    In fact, the country's overall productivity was found to have risen by 8% overall, and most people seemed happier in general.

    Some people actually spoke to each other (hard to believe, but it's true!) and no one felt the need to take a photo of their fucking lunch and upload it so everyone else could see it.

    Maybe we could do the same thing here, just for a week or two.

    • Re:OH NOES (Score:4, Insightful)

      by barc0001 ( 173002 ) on Monday December 14, 2015 @06:58PM (#51117875)

      I did not speak out for the social media networks because I didn't like social media networks....

      What exactly makes you think they'll stop there?

      And nothing, repeat NOTHING of value was lost. Except, you know, freedom to do as you choose.

      Pick up that can, citizen.

      • Except, you know, freedom to do as you choose.
        Pick up that can, citizen.

        Lol, "humor" and "satire" are foreign terms to you, aren't they? :)

    • Thank you good sir for stating the obvious that everyone oversees(it's not that obvious after all). Facebook,twitter and the rest of the social media, offer 0, that's _zero_, to the public. I wish there was a test before you were allowed to let your kids or yourself get exposed to that part of the internet.
      • I wish there was a test before you were allowed to let your kids or yourself get exposed to that part of the internet.

        I wish there was a test for being a humorless prick with no sense of satire, because you'd pass that with a score of 100.

        Now run along and go post your outrage at my comment to facebook, twitter, pinterest, snapchat, and grindr.

      • Perhaps we should have a test to approve people to communicate between one another thru any digital media. We could establish some kind of government panel that can apply the test, and maybe do a quick background investigation to make sure you're not going to stir up any kind of trouble with your comments. After all, people can say stupid shit online in many places beyond social media. You've proved that.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Guys, I got an idea! Instead of a distributed, open, peer to peer network under no central point of control as it was designed to be, let's continue to centralize all human communication on one of just a few commercial, closed, and proprietary services.

    I mean, that seems like a good idea. Right?

  • Let's prevent them from harmlessly venting online.

    • What about "Let's make it a bit more challenging for hard-core religious nutjobs [] to form ad-hoc mobs for the purpose of hacking up secularists in the streets []"?

      That's "hack" as in "machetes", BTW.

      Suddenly doesn't sound quite so bad, now, does it?

      • In that case, better ban cars too. And shoes. And machetes. Anything to make it harder for someone to chop up someone else, right?

      • Wow. Just.... wow.
        The article, and the links you provide discuss the fundamentalist Islamic nutjobs who hack bloggers to death. Did it occur to you for even a moment that the bloggers are being killed because they were the ones among the most vocal about keeping the Bangladesh traditions of secularism in government? Did it further occur to you that distribution of the ideas of those bloggers is heavily aided by social media?

        So in order to suppress the nutjobs, you propose to suppress those in oppositio
        • I don't agree with censorship. But the threat to open society in Bangladesh (and other countries) is quite real, and the reactions of the government should be understood properly, in context, and not dismissed with hand-waving as done in the post to which I was responding.

          For mine, the fundamental issue here is that there are folks who think it's perfectly okay--and perhaps even *required*--to kill those who don't agree with you, simply because they don't agree with you.

  • Dirt poor, repressive government takes steps to reject technology, choosing staying dirt poor and repressive as best options for improving status of nation and people.

No problem is so large it can't be fit in somewhere.