Ban the Internet

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
61

Not true. Ive been trying to access youtube for hours now because I realised all the porn sites accessible in pakistan do not give me the kick various videos containing ‘rare’ & global information on youtube (eg; http://www.paklinks.com/gs/pakistan-affairs/425545-attention-al-qaeda-supporters.html ) do but it wouldnt let me even with a proxy server.

While I really do not care about the ban on fb - the most useless site on earth, I do have concern over how Pakistani people are being isolated even to have any kind of global information on various different subjects. Who would rather want that for Pakistani people? The same people who brainwashed Pre-Pakistan pakistanis to make sure that they do not learn any languages other than arabic, gain any kind of education other than religious, or have any kind of political or other kind of knowledge & understanding about the world in order to keep them from having some ground to compete against the current day-indians. No one else could wish such a global isolation from the world of knowledge for pakistani people. That also tells me the strength of control current day indians have on pak’s internat matters & pakistani peoples’ lives.

Who said youtube is unblocked now?

62

Because they don't want a global diconnection of Pakistan by blocking Google or Internet, they are not so silly neither so stupid!
And secondly Government had nothing to do with this!
Was not it LHC to announce the ban and PTA that had to follow the order

63

Re: Ban the Internet

For those who are making futile arguments in favour of Facebook's page and all that blasphemous stuff, see the pole results here, isn't a slap on your face?

64

haha, so its expedience? I thought you had principles?

[quote]

And secondly Government had nothing to do with this!
Was not it LHC to announce the ban and PTA that had to follow the order
[/QUOTE]

I know. And courts are bound to apply laws consistently, not where it is convenient to do so. i thought the doctrine of necessity was buried?

65

You seem so much obsessed with the porn sites, why don’t you register a complaint with PTI?

66

Here, you are advised to consult some legal books. Law is never RIGID and constitent as you believe. It's always an art of possible! We have principles but we need to apply them with our convenience. It's the same legal system inspired by those whom you love -- It's not a Shariah Court of the reign of Hazrat Umer RA

67

Courts interpret laws the way they want!
They disagree with the interpretation of one lawyer and may agree to another's. Why they need to be give a verdict on your interpretation.

68

I know it is useless to do that on my part but I am actually trying to get our goats & ninjas to stop for a moment & ponder for a change............ that there is a political agenda which anti pakistan mafia is achieving through using their community. But I guess I would keep trying until I completely give up the hope that normal Pakistani people like me can still live a normal life in Pakistan.

69

Re: Ban the Internet

so you're agreeing with me that the principle on which facebook was banned can be applied to google and the internet in general, merely disagreeing that the courts should not apply the principle to them. that the authorities should apply it to google (they did) and the internet in general was a rhetorical point, I do not seriously wish for them to do so. i agree with you, they shouldnt be principled in applying their principles to google and the internet.

70

They could, but then a million and a half red necked bubbas would cry out "the terrorists have won!!!". Google would have to do what makes good business sense.

Personally, I don't know what's up with YouTube and Google. Facebook makes sense.

As far as I can divine, given facebooks response, Pakistan wants to reserve the right to flag certain content. It's technically easy to do; and this would bring these corps into line with Pakistani law.

[quote]

But to the broader point that the sites are not hosted on google. Well they're hosted on the internet. Why not ban that? What basis is there for calling for a ban on facebook but not internet?

[/quote]
No, there's no single thing called "the Internet". The internet is simply a medium through which several smaller networks interconnect. It's a distributed system in the very true sense of the word. The internet plays a role similar to air in speech.

It may be seemingly arbitrary where the line is drawn, but the fact is, most people can distinguish between content, those that distribute the content for profit, and the medium through which it is distributed.

Why should Pakistan not exercise, to the fullest extent of it's ability, it's mandate of bringing all corporations that operate on it's soil in line with the writ of Pakistani law? Principles? What kind of double standard is it if Pakstani media outlets are bound to one set of constraints, and foreign companies are given free reign?

[quote]

This is a challenge to those who argue for the banning of Facebook/Youtube/Wikipedia. I will prove that I can apply that principle to the extent that you will not have a thing called Internet, atleast in the way it is understood. Debate if you can.
[/quote]
It's a classical slippery slope argument, based on a false characterization of what the Internet is. Further, the causal chain in reasoning is broken, as it presumes the penultimate goal is perfection. Not all speeders get speeding tickets; doesn't make the point of traffic laws moot.

The intent may well be to set precedent, and bring key corporations under compliance. Yes, the small fish may get away with it...nice and arbitrary...so what?

71

Having said that, it may not be such a bad thing for google et all to be shut down.......gives local talent and companies room to expand. Presuming such talent hasn't migrated yet...LOL

72

No it's not. Pirate Bay is being shut down. Oh oh, pirate bay is "hosted" on the internet...and in fact you can use google to get to sites like rapidshare which pretty much serve the same purpose. Applying the same slippery slope argument, we're now in danger of having the whole internet shut down. That line of reasoning doesn't work.

73

The same argument applies to facebook.

[quote]

No, there's no single thing called "the Internet". The internet is simply a medium through which several smaller networks interconnect. It's a distributed system in the very true sense of the word. The internet plays a role similar to air in speech.

[/quote]

Please do not explain to me what "the Internet" is. All my three degrees have been in computing, and I am pretty familiar with the mechanics of computing.

To be more specific when I say "the Internet" I refer to domains outside of the direct control of Pakistan. To be more specific I refer to some of the few big names that comprise or are a part of most of internet usage. Thus my emphasis on google. It is my contention that were I to shut off a few key domains, "the Internet" as the term is understood would cease to exist for Pakistanies.

[quote]

It may be seemingly arbitrary where the line is drawn, but the fact is, most people can distinguish between content, those that distribute the content for profit, and the medium through which it is distributed.

[/quote]

as can I.

[quote]

It's a classical slippery slope argument. The causal chain is broken, as it presumes the penultimate goal is perfection.
[/quote]

Not really. Im not trying to make a causal argument that banning facebook will lead to banning the internet. I can apply it, Im not arguing that they will.

[quote]

The intent may well be to set precedent, and bring key corporations under compliance. Yes, the small fish may get away with it...nice and arbitrary...so what?
[/QUOTE]

So you dont dispute that most internet access could be arbitrarily denied, merely that it need not be. Fine. I dont think courts should have the authority to take arbitrary, unprincipled action, you do. I think precedents matter, you dont. We just have very different takes on what the function of courts should be. For me, its the provision of justice and uniform enforcement of law, for you its strategic fencing with multinational corporations.

how is that relevant? Pakistan cannot shut off facebook worldwide either, obviously the context is what Pakistan can shut off.

so you're saying its not a bad thing for 'such' sites to be eliminated. may I ask if you are in a profession related to the field?

[quote]

No it's not. Pirate Bay is being shut down. Oh oh, pirate bay is "hosted" on the internet...and in fact you can use google to get to sites like rapidshare which pretty much serve the same purpose. Applying the same slippery slope argument, we're now in danger of having the whole internet shut down. That line of reasoning doesn't work.
[/quote]

I have already explained why a) I am not arguing against the banning of sites in principle, but the reasons given, and b) why Im not saying what this will happen, therefore its not a causal argument at all.

74

Ok the posts are pretty off topic here now.

I agree with TLK’s post .. every bit of it. I think we are easily provoked people hence some kid and other follower’s of his taking advantage of us. We could’ve easily ignored that stupid link. People supporting that link simply want attention and are probably laughing their whatever off seeing us go all angry and wild. Exactly what they wanted to achieve. Such a sad bunch we are..

Here is a link.. some blogger explaining why it wasn’t a good idea to do all this banning and blocking facebook.. a must read.

75

Re: Ban the Internet

Since you edited your posts during my reply I’ll respond to the edited parts:

Dont count on it. The revenue generated from advertisers catering to the Pakistani market is a drop in the bucket. Pakistan doesnt have much of an ecommerce market. A more likely result is the pricing out of Pakistan in the money they quote to advertisers.

All corporations? So you are saying this principle should be applied to all organizations yes? Making the slippery slope argument for me I see. Well heres the thing, you seem to have a lot of confidence in local talent but I assure you we need these corporations more than they need us. In more than one sense, technological, financial, revenue generation, in terms of quality of content. For all your strategic application of the law these kinds of appoaches harm us much more strategically than it harms them. If you read the little bit of coverage of the debates, it was PTA that was taking the harm argument (i.e. that they stood to lose money, that this might result in being disconnected entirely from the net) and the Islamic lawyers movement that was arguing from the perspective of principle (a lawyer said something to the effect we can starve/sacrifice our lives for Islam).

I’ll give you one simple example. Go to outsourcing sites and a sizable bit of development is in development for tools to be used on these big sites that you’d like to see banned. Facebook widgets/apps. Google apps. the local talent you’d like to encourage needs access to such sites.

The point of precedence is not that all speeders should get speeding tickets, but that any speeder established to be speeding and capable of being punished should be punished. It is well within the capability of PTA to ban the Internet (in the meaning I’ve elaborated) and Google (which it did).

You modified your post to say you didnt think it was such a bad idea to ban google. Bismillah. Karain ban. Why dont you take the first step and pledge here never to use google again, and instead utilize one of these Pakistani search engines that I found for you (using google). It will encourage local talent.

76

Re: Ban the Internet

dude, ravage I have to say you have the patience of a saint. I don't know how you do this. you're arguing with people who're as slippery as eels. any time religion is involved, they have to make shor sharaba without even trying to understand the complete story. I would have lost my patience a long, long time ago.

anyway, not sure if I should say keep it up. regardless GS is better off because of posters like you who use logic and clearly uncommon sense.

77

Re: Ban the Internet

tx samb, you are generous with praise, and a bit too unkind to our opponents. i dont lose my patience because i have been on the other side and can see what i am arguing against. i would urge you to say more but it would only derail this thread

78

It will have zero impact on FB/YT apart from getting get free publicity.

79

What's your speciailization, out of curiosity? Regardless, the point remains; there is no single Internt as such.

[quote]

To be more specific when I say "the Internet" I refer to domains outside of the direct control of Pakistan. To be more specific I refer to some of the few big names that comprise or are a part of most of internet usage. Thus my emphasis on google. It is my contention that were I to shut off a few key domains, "the Internet" as the term is understood would cease to exist for Pakistanies.

[/quote]

Google itself relies on ISPs to get its content out. These ISPs can loosely be described as the heart of the Internet. IBM, Qwest, UUNET, etc. Google isn't in that game, afaik.

[quote]

Not really. Im not trying to make a causal argument that banning facebook will lead to banning the internet. I can apply it, Im not arguing that they will.

[/quote]

You missed the part about seeking perfection. Also, the chain of reasoning is still broken, specificially because of the distinction between content and medium. It's for this same reason why the Google analogy doesn't work...you gloss over the fact in your initial post that Google doesn't actually host content.

Second, you also falsely reason that sites are "hosted" on an Internet. The Internet, and WWW specifically, is infrastrucutre. Specific companies and organizations host content, and interlink through the Net. Yes, you may know this, so spare me a credential flash. Other readers may not.

If your intent was to show that the wholesale ban on facebook is nonsensical, I actually agree...it really should be specific content that is banned or not. Why pick on facebook as a whole? Because that's the finest grain organization that is ultimately responsible for disseminating published content. Occam's razor...doesn't make sense to bring in Google, or the Internet as a whole. It adds no value in persuing specific content that is objectionable, and it is my understanding that this is in strict response to the Draw Muhammad (pbuh) Day. If not, then I digress...

There is a greater context to this issue, and that's about Net regulation, and I go on about that here and there. By no means do I construe this to be a social justice issue...

[quote]

So you dont dispute that most internet access could be arbitrarily denied, merely that it need not be.

[/quote]

Yes. Indeed, even facebook serves as a dual to the Internet; in some sense they're a medium in their own right. Unlike the Internet, they have full control over their content.

[quote]

Fine. I dont think courts should have the authority to take arbitrary, unprincipled action, you do.

[/quote]

Unprincipled ? Hardly. Arbitrary...the extent to which laws are applied often seem so. What of it? As I said, not all speeders get speeding tickets. So what of it?

[quote]

I think precedents matter, you dont.

[/quote]

On the contrary; what you miss out is that a single court case sets the precedent. And in no way does this take us down the slipper slope of banning the Internet....or air for that matter.

[quote]

We just have very different takes on what the function of courts should be. For me, its the provision of justice and uniform enforcement of law, for you its strategic fencing with multinational corporations.

[/quote]

Oh, come on. You know well that a big function of government in general is regulating industry. This is hardly a social justice issue.

[quote]

so you're saying its not a bad thing for 'such' sites to be eliminated. may I ask if you are in a profession related to the field?

[/quote]

Keep yer shorts on. Google et all being shut down because they refuse to abide by local laws...that's a-okay. Side effect I suggested (half in hest) is that such events can actually help local business...e.g. Chinese companies swooped in and took market share from google. The only drawback I see is that inferior products and services may supplant existing ones; and local companies will loose any motivation to improve.

Yes, I was a glorified code monkey, who now resides in a comfy ivory tower.

[quote]

I have already explained why a) I am not arguing against the banning of sites in principle, but the reasons given, and b) why Im not saying what this will happen, therefore its not a causal argument at all.
[/quote]

Reason? Site X has illegal content. Site X blocked until it takes action on any such content. End of story. Perhaps a bit of a heavy handed approach (should have probably approached face book first), but I don't really know how things unfolded except from what we read in the papers.

So if there's any problem with the situation, it's how things were done, not why.

80

Re: Ban the Internet

Do you think that it is possible now to close the internet ?