If a black man tried to get a KKK website blocked he'd fail. There are innumerable KKK websites. If black men rioted, burnt black owned shops, killed black people because of KKK websites, they would be characterised as babies. If people took decisions based on the idea that oh no if we dont do this black men will kill each other, it would be tantamount to treating black people as babies.
.
If someone is rioting, burning shops and killing people over this issue i would not only call this childish but also criminal and ask them to be punished. I am merely saying that blocking the website according to our laws is fine, you should not object to it. Again you are taking a criminal activity as a justification of not doing a totally legal thing, that is blocking a website.
[QUOTE]
Not just social networking sites remember. It now applies to youtube (a video hosting site) and wikipedia (an online information repository). So without saying whether or not you're childish in your request Im asking you to draw a distinction between your opposition to this and your lack of opposition to Google and the Internet in general.
[/QUOTE]
Google is a search engine and internet is internet, its liek you are asking to tear down the building for acts of occupants. As for youtube, i told you, i am not aware if indeed a large number of people made a plea to them about such material.
It is also incorrect to say that nobody controls the internet. In Pakistan, Pakistan controls the internet. Just switch off. Thats control. You can also limit access to only safe domains, say only .pk.
Are we going be acting mqm on world stage all the time?
Can we not strive to be more in control, in rather graceful way?
A kid or cartoonist brining whole umma to its knees?
Does not matter how painful it is for us, but we just can't show our weak side to ill-willed ppl.
That not how you win. ----> trust me on this one!!
Yaar, i already said that in another thread, i would have preferred to see Pakistan not involved in this controversy, as we seem the only country among nearly 50 muslim countries to have done this. We already have too much negative publicity. I also would not like to see people on streets for it. But as a principle i dont find anythign wrong in a country blocking a website that publishes material which is illegal according to that country's law.
If someone is rioting, burning shops and killing people over this issue i would not only call this childish but also criminal and ask them to be punished.
Cool, so we agree on the baby characterization.
[quote]
I am merely saying that blocking the website according to our laws is fine, you should not object to it.
[/quote]
Why should I not object to something merely because its in accordance with the law? I can be critical of the law itself as well as the selective application of it. If it is law to ban facebook, the same law should apply to other sites that provide access to illegal material.
[quote]
Again you are taking a criminal activity as a justification of not doing a totally legal thing, that is blocking a website.
[/quote]
You're misreading the argument. The 'babies' discussion happened because hareem said the courts did it because otherwise people would riot in the streets and burn shops. I said in that case they're treating people like babies.
[quote]
Google is a search engine and internet is internet, its liek you are asking to tear down the building for acts of occupants.
[/quote]
The internet is an information repository. Facebook is an information repository. They are both buildings, one is merely larger than the other. In both cases the content is from the users/occupants in your analogy.
Furthermore I specifically pointed out measures Google can take to eliminate access to offensive material. Just filter based on keywords. Given that its not doing that, and allowing for the hypothetical that they wont, do you support banning google.
[quote]
As for youtube, i told you, i am not aware if indeed a large number of people made a plea to them about such material.
[/QUOTE]
It is also incorrect to say that nobody controls the internet. In Pakistan, Pakistan controls the internet. Just switch off. Thats control. You can also limit access to only safe domains, say only .pk.
By control, I meant no one owns the internet as such so banning the internet is only going to hurt the people, the economy, the media of Pakistan and no one from outside world would give it a damn.
It is also incorrect to say that nobody controls the internet. In Pakistan, Pakistan controls the internet. Just switch off. Thats control. You can also limit access to only safe domains, say only .pk.
By control, I meant no one owns the internet as such so banning the internet is only going to hurt the people, the economy, the media of Pakistan and no one from outside world would give it a damn.
i think you'll find that facebook wont give a damn about Pakistan either. and denying access to an information resource like wikipedia only hurts us.
Well let the concerned authorities decide on it.
the concerned authorities are acting like idiots. i dont put it past them to really limit access to only .pk. since i cant debate them Im debating those who support them.
The internet is an information repository. Facebook is an information repository. They are both buildings, one is merely larger than the other. In both cases the content is from the users/occupants in your analogy.
Furthermore I specifically pointed out measures Google can take to eliminate access to offensive material. Just filter based on keywords. Given that its not doing that, and allowing for the hypothetical that they wont, do you support banning google.
so its irrelevant.
Lets leave the hypotheticals.
And Facebook and internet are not even comparable.
Because you cant answer the question? I'll rephrase the question without the hypothetical. Google allows search queries that give access to offensive content. Facebook/Wiki/Youtube were banned for the same reason. Why not google?
[quote]
And Facebook and internet are not even comparable.
[/QUOTE]
And why not? Speaking based on traffic, someone mentioned that facebook and youtube comprise of 47% of pakistan's internet usage. Clearly in terms of usage facebook compares quite well with general internet usage.
^ thats irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. When I say internet I mean access to domain servers, which applies to both internet and facebook.
I believe in consistent application of law and I prefer consumers deciding for themselves what they'd like to boycott instead of having courts enforce bans (which set bad precedents and ultimately are self-serving).
what criteria should there be for blocking sites. well to my mind what springs is criminal activity. if you are at risk of being scammed or something like that. block it. stuff like that.
Censorship on internet is done in lot of countries, nothing wrong in Pakisatn doing it according to its law. And each case is different, violaters of a law is dealt with according nature, circumstances and effects of violation.
So you acknowledge that internet can be used for criminal activity- ban the internet.
So, 30 people die in Karachi in one day by their fellow country/religion men, but nobody cares.. all they care is why FB had this page open depicting what we never want to see. As if its so important that we dont let anyone draw sketch of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) but whatever his teachings are, we dont worry about that.
What message will be given to FB and you tube? China has tried to do worse with Google. What happened? Did they bring them down to their knees?
You want to respond them, then reply to all the stupid comments on any such pages by giving better logics and make them understand that we can reply them peacefully, not by banning anything or putting our head in sand.
You want to respond them, then be a better muslim, acting on all what Prophet has preached.
You want to respond them, create your own FB, be so much creative that the whole world follow you, not you following them.
Being negative or being dumb is never a good option to respond them. There have been people since day 1 who have been trying to mock Prophet but he's far above that.
Its only us that are making things worse inspite of making it better..
I was thinking of starting a thread on this topic but refrained from it. Why? Because i thought i will get banned too! :D)
Nice thread, could not agree with u and TLK more. It is the muslims reaction that made southpark and “draw prophet day” famous. All a none muslim has to do is say something negative about prophet(pbuh), or draw a picture to inflame the whole ummah. Whose fault is it?
The question is that Facebook has a certain TERMS/CONDITIONS FOR ITS USE, when a certain amount of users report a page, it is for sure to be blocked/deleted by Facebook which in this case, it's did not while millions of Muslims, almost every Muslim on FB reported that page, but fb never cared to delete it. All these contemptous and blasphemous material is not by a social networking site like Facebook. Facebook is for socialisation, it has to be responsible.
And it's facebook page EDMD that drew so much criticism and rivalry from the Muslims specially Pakistanis, so kuch tau hay jau FB k is page k khilaaf hee logue sarkoon per nikal aayaay ?
If you are having any problem with any other site, send an email to PTI, they will respond intantly and block that website. I just complained about a website today, to PTI Chairman via email and now that has become unaccessable in Pakistan.
Whatever hurts people and for what they register a complain, PTA will take action.
It's ridiculous to demand a ban on internet or google, then.