• LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    212
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    This is not about social media bans, it’s against the corrupt government. It’s being reframed. If you think about it, if the only problem was social media ban, they’d just all get vpns. They’re not stupid. They’re trying to frame it as silly kids, (because they’re all gen z and Gen alpha, in their school uniforms, so as to be less likely to be shot) who can’t live without social media. But it’s not, it’s protesting deep government corruption. If word gets out that it’s a protest against government corruption, other people facing similar oppression, may become emboldened, so it’s being buried.

    • ssladam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Yep. Running the standard playbook. They wouldn’t do it, if it wasn’t so effective. Today they’d be calling the Boston Tea Party a bunch of anti-caffeine health nuts.

      • zrst@lemmy.cif.su
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        The American Revolution happened because colonizers didn’t want to help repay Britain for its help in the French Indian War.

        • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          “help” repay the “help” for a fight that really only existed in Europe. The French Indian War was a subsidiary conflict to the 7 Years War in Europe.

          Britain then chose to squeeze extra taxes from the colonies, who didn’t get a voice in parliament to protest forced participation in the conflict in the first place. Then remember that the British answer to the unrest was to HOUSE SOLDIERS IN THEIR HOMES. Imagine if Trump or some other authoritarian leader today responded to mass civil unrest by couch surfing soldiers through everyone’s houses. Very easy to imagine a revolution then.

    • zrst@lemmy.cif.su
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      if the only problem was social media ban, they’d just all get vpns. They’re not stupid.

      This is a major leap in logic. I’m not saying your point is wrong, but plenty of people won’t get VPNs because they are too ignorant to see the value in them.

        • zrst@lemmy.cif.su
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Literally nowhere with internet restrictions do the majority of internet users have VPNs. They are always an exception.

          Take off the disney goggles and try to see things for what they are every once in awhile. It’s good for you.

          • LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            When restrictions hit the UK, massive spikes in VPN use were seen. Why was that. Dude, vpns are well known by anyone who uses the internet in any form. They’re everywhere, they advertise themselves in feeds. You have to be a special level of obtuse to not know what they are.

            • zrst@lemmy.cif.su
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Yeah, you can’t read so this will be my last response before I block you.

              “A massive spike” in no way translates to “the majority.”