During an election (Uganda for example) or during a coup (Myanmar for example) they are doing so to..

A. Block any legitimate complaints or news about what you are doinf so you won't look bad or the proof of looking bad is hidden.

B. Don't have the sophisticated tech savy ways, access to media houses like the USA and others to shadow ban, censor, block or have warnings on certain topics so they gotta gorilla pimp the internet.

C. People will intentionally or unintentionally cause confusion on certain sites in the name of free speech so it wont even go there you gotta nip it in the bud (related to question B?)

D. Something else or a mixture of A,B and or C?

This has been true for conflicts since forever. The internet changed the game because you can no longer accomplish this by just taking over the local news outlets. But it's still in the playbook just expanded as the internet to cover everything. If they can do a temporary takedown then quell all dissent and renew access before international intervention they can "win". However I think we've reached the point where doing so completely delegitimizes your efforts. Unfortunately I don't think that memo is being distributed well. Lol.


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

The Arab Spring showed how powerful social media is as an organizing tool. If you block the big social media sites, then you slow the spread of mass organization. The opposition can't tweet: "meet here at 4pm" and easily reach millions of people.
They are forced to go underground and use word of mouth to organize which is a lot slower and has lower reach.