The Australian government is thought to be behind the ban

May 5, 2015 09:09 GMT  ·  By

People in Nauru have been denied access to Facebook since Thursday last week and the explanation that the almost 10,000 inhabitants received from their government was that the social media portal was promoting pornographic material which was against their religious beliefs.

However, this implausible excuse did not satisfy the users who lament the ban that the officials have put on the tool they used to keep in touch with their families and friends.

First, they claimed that the service had become unavailable because of a technical issue, now they have come up with adult content allegations, despite the fact that the social networking site does not allow lewd content.

However, it was revealed that the actual reason behind the ban is strictly related to political concerns and some claim that the authorities from Nauru might be following strict indications from Australia, The Telegraph reports.

Former Nauru president, Sprent Dabwido, sides with the locals and claims that no one agrees with the decision to block Facebook access for all the Nauruans. He even declares that moral reasons are not what determined the government to take the decision.

The Australian government is thought to have ordered the ban

There is, however, a more grounded reason which perfectly fits the situation, namely that Australia is in fact behind the ban. Blocking Facebook means preventing asylum seekers from getting any kind of contact with the outside world and keeping them in complete isolation.

Locals are now accusing their current president, Baron Waqa, of abusing his power and using dictatorial measures to stifle their freedom to access social media.

What’s more, Facebook seems to be among the many sites that the government has taken the decision to block, deeming them unsuitable for the citizens.

People feel that they have been deprived of their right to free speech and that the Facebook block was only a method used by the government to prevent them from criticizing the unlawful methods used by the authorities.

It remains to be seen whether, following the inhabitants’ protests, the ban will be lifted or the block is just temporary and if it disappears shortly after the refugees are taken to Cambodia, which would prove that the Australian government is indeed behind the oppressive measures.