Papua New Guinea Will Shut Down Facebook For A Month

[Lucian Armasu]

The government of Papua New Guinea announced plans to ban Facebook for a month within the country, in order to study how people use it and if it can build a better alternative.

Papua New Guinea Will Shut Down Facebook For A Month : Read more

 

[stdragon]

LOL. And nothing of value was lost.

 

[Kirk1975]

I deleted my Facebook, FB Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp accounts. I have enough "REAL" BS in my life. Who needs imaginary crap on top of it.

 

[derekullo]

For proper guidance on how to use facebook;

If you wouldn't tell your mother what you are about to post ... DON'T POST IT.

If you wouldn't tell your neighbor what you are about to post ... DON'T POST IT.

If you wouldn't tell the police what you are about to post ... DON'T POST IT.

If you wouldn't tell the IRS what you are about to post ... DON'T POST IT.

That about covers most situations, but feel free to insert any person/group/agency.


As for the blocking Facebook and then analyzing how its citizens use Facebook I am led to only one conclusion.

Papua New Guinea is challenging its citizens on how to setup a VPN to access Facebook.

I'd link some popular VPNs but that might be seen as cheating lol.

 

[derekullo]

While reading this I kept wondering why they were making references to .PNG files in the most random places.

Took a few seconds but it finally clicked lol.

 

[alextheblue]

They're also planning on public spankings for anyone caught bypassing the filters. I'm no fan of social media but blocking access is no better than the Chinese controlling their population's net access.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

USA should shut it down permanently.

 

[richardkiyoshi]

Cant people change their DNS server to something like google's to bypass it?

 

[stdragon]

Cant people change their DNS server to something like google's to bypass it?

Depends on if the nation blocks the actual IP to the DNS resolver. If so, you'll have to resort to an outside SSL VPN provider.

 

[Martell1977]

"as well as how fake news spreads on the platform."

So will they be blocking CNN and MSNBC to research the same?

 

[Tanyac]

Most of people I spoke with that use Facebook haven't heard about Cambridge Analytica, nor the several other PR nightmares and testimonies by Zuckerberg.

ie. They live in a vacuum completely oblivious to what's going on in the world with the necks permanently bent in the cell phone position. (Forward and looking down).

I see so many people wandering around malls, on streets and pretty much everywhere with their head buried so deep in their phone they don't even see people around them...

What a depraved society we have become

 

[AnimeMania]

What government wouldn't want complete control of their country's internet, putting a name to every post that is sent. I am sure the Papua New Guinea government is closely studying how to filter the content make sure that it's people never receive "Fake" news, only the "Real" news. And if the government manages to remove "pornography" from the internet as well, they have truly mastered every aspect of computer science. I feel sorry for the future of "information" and "The Truth".

 

[rantoc]

Tanyac@ Too true, don't understand why the military are working to develop drones when 1/2 of most developed nations teenagers are drones already - Phone drones in need of an app to point them in the right direction or one of the zillion collect "like" social apps. Its sad really

 

[vern72]

Quick! Swim to Australia!

 

[turkey3_scratch]

"as well as how fake news spreads on the platform."

So will they be blocking CNN and MSNBC to research the same?

Some say that Fox is fake news, some say that CNN is fake news, some say both, some say neither. Wouldn't it be better that we know the objective truth? Whether yes or no. We both look at a chair. We both agree it is a chair. We see that objectively it is a chair, so there needs be no disagreement. Why can't it be this way with these things? You seem to believe that CNN and MSNBC are objectively fake news. But how can we prove it?

Largely, I think it is best to be clear about many things:

1) How do we define fake news? Could it be that your definition of fake news is different than somebody else's definition, and therefore disagreements over what is or is not fake news is actually a mere disagreement over the semantics of the term "fake news"?

2) Once fake news is defined and agreed upon by a majority, it can be applied to a specific news article. A news article may or may not be fake news. But what constitutes that a news organization is or is not fake news? If a news organization, throughout its history, has only published one fake news article, by the agreed upon definition, then is that organization fake news? Or maybe 5 is the magic number? Or maybe it has to be a ratio of the number of fake news articles to the amount of time that news organization has been around? And then how do we know what ratio objectively constitutes that the news organization is in fact, unarguably, fake news by the criteria?

3) If our definition of fake news somehow pertains to "facts", we need to keep in mind that what is or is not a fact is still a huge field of philosophy and a large point of debate. People like to generally believe that everyone agrees on the facts, but it's just a whole 'nother roller coaster of academic papers on the study of factuality. So could it be that, the root cause of disagreement, is actually a disagreement over the semantics of facts?

 

[stdragon]

We see that objectively it is a chair, so there needs be no disagreement. Why can't it be this way with these things?

Because there are two types of people in this world; those that wish to control the lives of others, and those that don't.

You seem to believe that CNN and MSNBC are objectively fake news. But how can we prove it?

It's proven all the time. It's up to you to choose which information to believe, or not.

George Orwell's 1984 served as a warning. Instead it became coveted as a user-manual.

 

[Martell1977]

Some say that Fox is fake news, some say that CNN is fake news, some say both, some say neither. Wouldn't it be better that we know the objective truth? Whether yes or no. We both look at a chair. We both agree it is a chair. We see that objectively it is a chair, so there needs be no disagreement. Why can't it be this way with these things? You seem to believe that CNN and MSNBC are objectively fake news. But how can we prove it?

Largely, I think it is best to be clear about many things:

1) How do we define fake news? Could it be that your definition of fake news is different than somebody else's definition, and therefore disagreements over what is or is not fake news is actually a mere disagreement over the semantics of the term "fake news"?

2) Once fake news is defined and agreed upon by a majority, it can be applied to a specific news article. A news article may or may not be fake news. But what constitutes that a news organization is or is not fake news? If a news organization, throughout its history, has only published one fake news article, by the agreed upon definition, then is that organization fake news? Or maybe 5 is the magic number? Or maybe it has to be a ratio of the number of fake news articles to the amount of time that news organization has been around? And then how do we know what ratio objectively constitutes that the news organization is in fact, unarguably, fake news by the criteria?

3) If our definition of fake news somehow pertains to "facts", we need to keep in mind that what is or is not a fact is still a huge field of philosophy and a large point of debate. People like to generally believe that everyone agrees on the facts, but it's just a whole 'nother roller coaster of academic papers on the study of factuality. So could it be that, the root cause of disagreement, is actually a disagreement over the semantics of facts?

1) Unfortunately, objectivity in the news has long since died.

2) When a "news" channel constantly overblows and twists events or facts to meet their agenda, that, to me, constitutes fake news. Today, no "news" agency is immune to this, but some are rampant.

3) Facts are facts, things happen the way they happen. It's the "spin" some people put in it after that makes it fake news. You can take anything out of context and twist it to meet an agenda.

I specifically mention CNN and MSNBC because they have been caught "spinning" things to their agenda. CNN even got caught faking a satellite hookup. It was hilarious, but just one more notch in how fake they have become.

 

[alextheblue]

Some say that Fox is fake news, some say that CNN is fake news, some say both, some say neither. Wouldn't it be better that we know the objective truth? Whether yes or no. We both look at a chair. We both agree it is a chair. We see that objectively it is a chair, so there needs be no disagreement. Why can't it be this way with these things? You seem to believe that CNN and MSNBC are objectively fake news. But how can we prove it?

As Martell said they're all prone to these issues. However some of the examples of misinformation I've seen are really as simple as your chair analogy. It's not a matter of making an honest mistake when you are pulling information out of your butt and publishing it, and/or deliberately misleading people, to push an agenda. They're not interested in the facts themselves, they want to you to subscribe to their worldview. When the facts support them, they appear to be all about facts. When the facts don't necessarily support them they either ignore or twist them. When they have no facts either way, they just proceed as though their very word is fact. If they don't like a particular piece of news at all, and can't find a way to spin it... they often don't even cover the story AT ALL. If they don't report on it, it might as well not exist to all their viewers.

But getting back to truth and chairs: I actually saw five chairs. The NYT reports they saw one chair. ONE. Did they simply not look? Are they lying? Are they really THAT incompetent? Later they post a correction (that few people actually read) saying oops there were totally five chairs (this is actually a reference to a real story recently that made me chuckle). That's one of the big issues with lying- err, making mistakes. Most of their audience miss the (generally buried) retractions and the original story sticks in their heads as truth. That's definitely not limited to just one or two outfits, but they're not all guilty to the same extent.

So yeah, we have a lot of flaws in our media. With that being said, I'm grateful we even have mainstream opposition news in the US. England has neither mainstream opposition news, nor Freedom of Speech. If you want an alternative take on the news in England, you have to go online and actively seek it out... and hope whoever is putting it out there doesn't get jailed for Forbidden Speech and/or Heresy Against Doctrine.

 

[Colif]

PNG has 906k people on the internet, literally only 11% of nation have internet, so I can't see them hurting FB user base figures any time soon. A better alternative? Best alternative is not use it at all, and talk to people in real life.

Social media is just a collection scheme, let people tell you everything they want and you can sell it to advertisers who want to sell you that stuff. If its free, you are the product.

I don't trust any media outlet, they all guilty of fake news. TV is a dying legacy medium, as are newspapers - they all trying to leap onto the internet and act as gate keepers to the "truth" so that people don't wake up to the fact they aren't essential anymore.

 

[Olle P]

I actually think that this is a neat idea, for scientific purposes. (And provided that the lock-out is only in effect for a month!)
One month without FB shouldn't be a problem. For those that it become a problem it's an addiction and they shouldn't be allowed to use FB again...

... there are two types of people in this world; those that wish to control the lives of others, and those that don't.

You miss the third type: Those that already do control the lives of others.

1) Unfortunately, objectivity in the news has long since died.

2) When a "news" channel constantly overblows and twists events or facts to meet their agenda, that, to me, constitutes fake news. Today, no "news" agency is immune to this, but some are rampant.

3) Facts are facts, things happen the way they happen. It's the "spin" some people put in it after that makes it fake news. You can take anything out of context and twist it to meet an agenda.

1) Mostly true, but there are still public service news media around in the world that manage to stay mostly objective.

2) and 3) Angles and twists to push an agenda is one way of faking news.
Other methods are to withhold selected (and important) parts of the truth, or to simply create a false story from scratch.

The best way to get a good idea of what's really going on is to get the info from sources with different angles and affiliations. If possible also examine the source material yourself.

 

[clarkjd]

... there are two types of people in this world; those that wish to control the lives of others, and those that don't.

You miss the third type: Those that already do control the lives of others.

Your third type is simply a subset of the first type.