This paper focuses on recent initiatives in three countries (Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania) to “tax” the internet through introducing excise duties on, essentially, internet access and/or use.
It concludes that:
The increased excise duty on internet data services in Kenya is not a violation of international human rights norms and standards, as the increase is unlikely to hinder access to and/or use of the internet for Kenya’s people.
The excise duty in the form of licence-related fees for online content services in Tanzania is a violation of international human rights norms and standards, because the fees imposed are so high that they would render the cost of posting content online – that is, effective internet use – simply unaffordable for the vast majority of Tanzania’s people.
The excise duty on what is defined as “over-the-top services” in Uganda is a violation of international human rights norms and standards, because it renders the cost of accessing such services – that is, effective internet access – simply unaffordable for the majority of Uganda’s people.
The paper also makes suggestions for how redress might be sought in respect of Tanzania’s and Uganda’s human rights violations resulting from the imposition of their excise duty regimes.
2018/08/14: It seems like the censorship power many people on the left want Silicon Valley executives to unilaterally exercise might end up being wielded against the left. One good way to know that would happen is that is already is happening.
The power that these platforms have over the online public sphere should worry all of us, no matter whether we agree or disagree with a given content decision.
2018/09/04: Rightly or wrongly, many associate Mill’s On Liberty with the motif of a “marketplace of ideas,” a realm that, if left to operate on its own, will drive out prejudice and falsehood and produce knowledge. But this notion, like that of a free market generally, is predicated on a utopian conception of consumers. In the case of the metaphor of the marketplace of ideas, the utopian assumption is that conversation works by exchange of reasons: one party offers its reasons, which are then countered by the reasons of an opponent, until the truth ultimately emerges.
But conversation is not just used to communicate information. It is also used to shut out perspectives, raise fears, and heighten prejudice.
At behest of a feminist professor, an academic journal's board reportedly threatened to "harass the journal until it died."
Theodore Hill, a retired professor of mathematics at Georgia Tech, claims that activists successfully pressured the New York Journal of Mathematics to delete an article he had written for the academic journal because it considered a politically incorrect subject: the achievement gap between men and women at very high levels of human intelligence.
You have probably heard about the manifesto a Googler (not someone senior) published internally about, essentially, how women and men are intrinsically different and we should stop trying to make it
Please enable cookies on your web browser in order to continue.
We're big on diversity, but not when it comes to conservatives in academia. That's wrong.
In a wide-reaching decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that same-sex "marriage" is a constitutional right and that states must recognize same-sex unions.
Chi di voi, di noi, della generazione che ha viaggiato e ha visto ambienti internazionali, o almeno ha parlato con immigrati e figli di immigrati, non conosce qualche "musulmano brava gente"? O magari musulmani occidentalizzati, che in fondo il velo non importa, il sesso prematrimoniale si può anche fare, un bicchierino di alcool non dà
Charlie Hebdo's editors started as aggressively secular youth rebels.
An Arab Muslim cartoonist condemns the Paris attacks even though he finds the magazine's editorial slant hurtful.
2015/01/07: It is comforting and politically expedient to claim that “we” are attacked because “they” cannot deal with “our” freedoms, particularly freedom of speech.
Evgeny Morozov: Beijing and Moscow are rightly chastised for restricting their citizens' online access - but it's the US that is now even more aggressive in asserting its digital sovereignty
Yesterday saw the publication of the Intelligence and Security Committee report into the events leading up to the murder of Lee Rigby. On reading it, one gets a sense of naivety from the members of the committee on how the Internet works, particularly when it comes to international jurisdictions. (Communications data is p139 onwards) Notably,
To ask Muslims to decry the crimes being done in the name of Islam is to risk being labeled an Islamophobe-along with far worse fates.
Now is the time for Catholics to express the truth about marriage boldly. Our jobs and our legitimate standing in the public sphere may soon depend on it.
Twice in the last month, popular opinion has questioned a high-level hiring in commercial free software. Given the egalitarian nature of free softw...