Myanmar military threatens jail for online 'likes' for opponents

Myanmar is one country crying out for regime change….

It is almost like they actually believe they are the good guys, and do not realise those fighting against their control are doing so for the people to control government and the military as happens in most democracies.

What is happening in Myanmar is as bad as what is happening in Ukraine.

Children are being killed in firebombings, people are forced to flee across the border into India and there are so many of them that India has been forced to crackdown to discourage more from going.

Clashes between the Tatmadaw and Arakan Army have worsened the situation.

However the international interest in this crisis is missing due to obvious reasons.

Who defines what "dangerous misinformation" is?

The government does.

No, it does not, dangerous misinformation can be decided when people repeat things that can be objectively demonstrated as false and that put in risk the health of the people mislead by that false information. No government needs to be involved.

Virus,what about you saying bleach,was not harmful in children food

You cannot protect ignorant people from being ignorant,they will be ignorant regardless

The animals running Myanmar and their financial backers should be overthrown by force and, if they survive that, punished for their crimes.

Their goons just slaughtered some more children.

Children killed after Myanmar army helicopters fire at school. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-62967014

He said social media endorsements of the National Unity Government (NUG) or its armed affiliates, the People's Defense Forces (PDF), could lead to prison terms of three to 10 years, and worse for those providing even small amounts of money.

Practice safe texting in Burma.

No, it does not, dangerous misinformation can be decided when people repeat things that can be objectively demonstrated as false and that put in risk the health of the people mislead by that false information. No government needs to be involved.

There is no legal foundation for this "claim", at the same time, it is proven false just by reading the first paragraph of this article:

Myanmar's ruling junta on Tuesday warned the public against showing moral support for a "terrorist" resistance movement, threatening jail terms of up to 10 years just for liking or sharing its content on social media.

TOR over a VPN. Just saying ..........

There is no legal foundation for this "claim", at the same time, it is proven false just by reading the first paragraph of this article:

What "legal fundation" do you think is necessary to claim there are objective definitions for dangerous misinformation? that is just an excuse to criticize something you don't like by trying to use a false appeal to authority where it does not have any application.

And no, saying that something can objectively be qualified as dangerous disinformation without any goverment even being involved is not proved false by any government subjectively saying something is, the argument never was that everything is objective, but that some things can be proved so.

"terrorist" 

The pot calling the kettle black. Projectionism is the tool used by bullies, accusing everybody else of doing what they are doing themselves. For 60 years now by every name and internal lineup, it's the Tatmadaw behind it all. It's the same bullcrap with different names and faces.

It's time for the UN to impose complete economic sanctions on Myanmar. It made South Africa finally end its policy of apartheid in 1994, they're going to kick Putin in the crotch sooner or later, they were utilized during the Yugoslavia Breakup Wars, and they can work against these totalitarian violent clods. Their genocidal policies have caused a serious human rights crisis in the region. It's time to hit Myanmar where it counts. Enough is enough.

He said social media endorsements of the National Unity Government (NUG) or its armed affiliates, the People's Defense Forces (PDF), could lead to prison terms of three to 10 years, and worse for those providing even small amounts of money.

This is how it works.

Governments decide who are the terrorists. They make the laws of their own country.

What "legal fundation" do you think is necessary to claim there are objective definitions for dangerous misinformation? 

The fact is the government makes the law. Kind of a basic principle especially with a fundamental understanding of how a dictatorship functions in Myanmar.

that is just an excuse to criticize something you don't like by trying to use a false appeal to authority where it does not have any application.

Your criticizing something you don't like is not founded on any authority though, as you provide no source.

And no, saying that something can objectively be qualified as dangerous disinformation without any goverment even being involved is not proved false by any government subjectively saying something is, the argument never was that everything is objective, but that some things can be proved so.

Fallacious reasoning, when nothing is proven by that statement. Further, there was nothing that "put in risk" the health of the people mislead by that false information.

Virus,what about you saying bleach,was not harmful in children food

Why don't you quote what was written? is it because what you wrote is completely false? misrepresenting what other people have written is pointless when the text is there for anybody to confirm.

Virus,what about you saying bleach,was not harmful in children food

Why don't you quote what was written? is it because what you wrote is completely false? misrepresenting what other people have written is pointless when the text is there for anybody to confirm.

Correct--that was irresponsible to say and is not related to this article.

The fact is the government makes the law. Kind of a basic principle especially with a fundamental understanding of how a dictatorship functions in Myanmar.

The comment you quoted is clearly about how something can be validly, objectively qualified as dangerous misinformation without any government being included, showing how a corrupt government can make an invalid determination does absolutely nothing to refute that point. If that is still valid then saying every determination is dependent of the government is still mistaken.