Ban the Internet

[coOoLBreeze]

Re: Ban the Internet

I dont know, but I havent seen any reactions and actions from Iran and Saudi Arabia on that. I am sure they had tackeled in a much better way. Instead of just blocked the whole sites, try to blocked particular content and try to make it cool.

Pakistan is already in a very brutal defmaed state, every day there are articiles in all the western and indian media defaming our country.

Today Spain announced 1040 years of jail to terrorits who tried to blow up Madrid airport in 2006, but that news is no where. But Pakistan banning facebook, YT and Twitter is like the biggest story over the media.

[Ambassador1]

Did anyone hear that the anti Pakistan mafia has already started pressing the government to ban the internet in Pakistan?

As I have said many times before that india is using our own stupid people to throw us back into stone age culture. That's exactly what we can see happening now. They tried it during zia era. They're trying again now & the goats & ninjas have helped their agenda more than any enemy of Pakistan.

[picoico]

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.

This is a problem beyond Pakistan. When you start talking about countries like China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Brazil, India, which aren't as free-wheeling as the West when it comes to free speech, they need to have provisions in place.

I don't know if they will react to Pakistan's blockage, or if Pakistan will maintain it. But this is a drop in the bucket; there will be more events like this, and I don't think these corps will be on the winning side. As I said in another post, I think this issue more closely resembles issues of net taxation, and sites like Pirate Bay.

[quote]

All corporations? So you are saying this principle should be applied to all organizations yes? Making the slippery slope argument for me I see.

[/quote]

All corporations operating in forieng countries are obligated to abide by local laws and regulations. Failure of one, does not mean failure of all.

Yes, things to get complicated if Facebook and Google have an inadvertant presence in Pakistan due to the net's global nature.

The net is still the wild west, hardly a mature virtual village. We'll see how things go...

[quote]

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.

[/quote]

Dude, nobody needs facebook or google....

[quote]

For all your strategic application of the law these kinds of appoaches harm us much more strategically than it harms them.

[/quote]

Who is "them"? Facebook? Nobody really looses anything except a bunch of teens.

[quote]

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).

[/quote]

Yes, but then no rationale was given as to why they would want to disconnect from the net altogether.

[quote]

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.

[/quote]

Weak. Move up the value chain to Java EE, .Net. SAP. Flash. Shopify. so on and so on.

Second, if Pakistani developers are significant factors in development for goole apps, Facebook widgets, and so on....it's in Google, Facebook, etc. best interst to do the simple thing, flag the content, so a significant developer community of theirs can continue to support their platform.

[quote]

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.

[/quote]

YES! Exactly. Note how you just avoided a very silly slippery slope argument?

[quote]

It is well within the capability of PTA to ban the Internet (in the meaning I've elaborated) and Google (which it did).

[/quote]

LOL, now the analog is giving speeding tickets to people who are bloody well walking.

[quote]

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...
[/QUOTE]

LOL...wow...you really have an emotional attachment to Google...Bing is not that bad...give it a try.

And for the record, the suggestion was that Pakistan would survive without Google, and I whimsically suggested that maybe even local developers would get a chance to show their stuff...if such talent exists. So yes, ravage, take that as seriously as you want...whatever spins yer wheel.

[cricketplaya]

Re: Ban the Internet

Dang… a white man understands more than you brown sahabs.
…
It’s easy to see why Pakistan’s judges thought it easier to shut down Facebook than face widespread chaos and violence by upholding ‘freedom of expression’ of anti-Muslim bigots.
…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/deannelson/100040563/ill-tell-you-why-pakistan-blocked-facebook-and-youtube/

[Ambassador1]

anti Pakistan mafia has all the plans to put Pakistani people in the kind of oppression which is worse than saudia or iran through use of pakistani goats & ninjas.

That is what the purpose of these bannings only in Pakistan is....... Can you guess what's next?

I dont know, but I havent seen any reactions and actions from Iran and Saudi Arabia on that.

[ravage]

My last couple of posts on this. See this. If you want to continue and expect a response, please feel free to PM me, and I will respond when I find the time.

@picoico

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

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.

Yar. This is a lot like Ted Steven’s description of the internet. Google it. I have clarified what I meant ‘internet’. I mention google in particular not because I believe Google hosts websites but because it is the gateway to the web for most people.

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.

Did I gloss over it? How does noting that google doesnt host content gloss over it?

That facebook hosts the site versus provides access to it has not been a factor in the considerations. Evidenced by the fact that Google WAS banned.

The analogy I therefore constructed was that google allows the construction of offensive search queries, returns highly offensive results, despite having the ability to filter these out, and despite filtering them for other search queries. Note that nowhere is hosting an issue, but the provision of access to offensive 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.

Yea yea the internet is a series of tubes. You’re making distinctions without a difference. The same level of specificity the court applies in banning facebook, google, wikipedia, youtube and now twitter applies to the ‘internet’ in general. Good and bad content (regardless of which server the binary files are fetched from). Ban the good and the bad.

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…

Great we agree on the lack of specificity issue.

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?

The speeding analogy is completely wrong. Only reason speeders dont get tickets is if they’re not caught. When I say PTA can easily ‘catch’ them you switch the analogy to say oh but the others are walking.

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.

Hah. The irony of saying that when within two days our wonderfully vigilant authorities have subsequently banned google, twitter, wikipedia, youtube. Infact certain providers, unable to comply with banning just facebook bans, had to turn their internet services completely off.

But sure, make your arguments.

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.

Great then as a glorified code monkey, do you honestly think Pakistan’s domestic internet/CS industry is sizable? Im glad you acknowledge that any products you replace will be inferior. I further hazard that not only will these products be inferior they will be ill adopted because of their inferiority.

Any number of ‘pakistani’ search engines have come and gone. Because they were simply pathetic, and the information they gave access to was very limited. I dont know what magic wand you think will be waved if google is banned that the reality of that will change.

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.

Great so you acknowlege the ‘how’. As for Site X has illegal content, Site X is blocked, thats about as banal an argument as can be made. The sky is blue so it is blue.

[Ambassador1]

Re: Ban the Internet

All of this started last week when in one of my posts here on this forum, I posted a video from youtube in which an american radio anchor along with a guest said that 'robert gates' was the creator of al qaeda - a terror group normal muslims always wondered what is was.

[cricketplaya]

@Ambassador1

All of this started last week when in one of my posts here on this forum, I posted a video from youtube in which an american radio anchor along with a guest said that ‘robert gates’ was the creator of al qaeda - a terror group normal muslims always wondered what is was.

LOL

[ravage]

This is a problem beyond Pakistan. When you start talking about countries like China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Brazil, India, which aren't as free-wheeling as the West when it comes to free speech, they need to have provisions in place.

China yes. Indonesia and Malaysia, Im not aware of what provisions facebook/google has there. Same for India.

[quote]

I don't know if they will react to Pakistan's blockage, or if Pakistan will maintain it. But this is a drop in the bucket; there will be more events like this, and I don't think these corps will be on the winning side.

[/quote]

And why not? Especially if the publicity generated for them in the 'right' demographic outweighs the advertising power of the banned group?

[quote]

As I said in another post, I think this issue more closely resembles issues of net taxation, and sites like Pirate Bay.

[/quote]

the only thing in common with pirate bay is that its a banned site. but that has never been my argument. that sites can be banned for illegal behavior is not under question. the reasons given, the manner in which it is done, the lack of specificity of the ban enabling applicability to pretty much every large site that has user generated content, the timing of it, the publicity given to the group is what I have been criticising.

[quote]

Dude, nobody needs facebook or google....

[/quote]

Facebook, arguable. I dont use it much, but it must provide a function if its so popular. I imagine its a replacement of this forum. I dont believe you when you say you can live without google (or a similar search engine, such as bing or yahoo which would have exactly the same problem as google, and therefore would be banned on the same basis). How exactly do you get by?

[quote]

Yes, but then no rationale was given as to why they would want to disconnect from the net altogether.

[/quote]

Because of the lack of specificity in the ruling, allowing to ban any site with user generated content and relatively open moderation rules (as subsequent actions showed). The .com domain can be seen to be an organization (though not privately owned) operated by verisign. A lot of sites on the .com domain are offensive in content. verisign makes a profit from operating the .com domain. Ban .com.

Probably can be expanded to other domains, and a few more.. .net, .edu and so on and you've effectively disconnected from the internet as we know it.

[quote]

Weak. Move up the value chain to Java EE, .Net. SAP. Flash. Shopify. so on and so on.

[/quote]

Yea limit yourself to technologies that dont have UGC. When that particular vendor develops a UGC platform, abandon it because its going to get blocked soon? Thats the approach to take is it.

[quote]

Second, if Pakistani developers are significant factors in development for goole apps, Facebook widgets, and so on....it's in Google, Facebook, etc. best interst to do the simple thing, flag the content, so a significant developer community of theirs can continue to support their platform.

[/quote]

Not really. Pakistani developers are usually disadvantaged compared to the people they compete with. Indians, russians, east europeans etc.. plenty of people around willing to do the same work for the same cost. Bad enough as it is that outsourcing brokers warn people not to give projects to Pakistanies because they dont have electricity access.

[quote]

YES! Exactly. Note how you just avoided a very silly slippery slope argument?

LOL, now the analog is giving speeding tickets to people who are bloody well walking.

[/quote]

Heres where you tried to do a little dodge. In the previous analogy for your 'slippery slope' google et al were speeders who didnt get tickets. Now they're just walkers :)

[quote]

LOL...wow...you really have an emotional attachment to Google...Bing is not that bad...give it a try.

[/quote]

And Bing blocks Islamically offensive content?

[qupte]
And for the record, the suggestion was that Pakistan would survive without Google, and I whimsically suggested that maybe even local developers would get a chance to show their stuff...if such talent exists. So yes, ravage, take that as seriously as you want...whatever spins yer wheel.
[/QUOTE]

So you werent serious. So I'll ignore that.

[picoico]

@ravage

My last couple of posts on this. See this. If you want to continue and expect a response, please feel free to PM me, and I will respond when I find the time.

Nah, take yer time. These posts aren’t going anywhere, nor is this issue.

Yar. This is a lot like Ted Steven’s description of the internet. Google it.

Didn’t need to. If you take such a description and magically get “intertubes” (bing that) from it, then you ain’t paying attention.

Did I gloss over it? How does noting that google doesnt host content gloss over it?

You simply state google doesn’t host content, and draw no inference from it. You presume it’s not a jermaine point, with no further explanation. Gloss over.

That facebook hosts the site versus provides access to it has not been a factor in the considerations. Evidenced by the fact that Google WAS banned.

Yes. Which is why I stanted I suppor the FB ban, but don’t quite get all the others.

The analogy I therefore constructed was that google allows the construction of offensive search queries, returns highly offensive results, despite having the ability to filter these out, and despite filtering them for other search queries.

a) Google doesn’t own that content
b) The act of filtering will never be perfect, so google could only ever make a best effort attempt, so their ability to filter these out without the cooperation of the sites hosting content is overstated
c) Links to content are not the same as content itself. Try to drill through on blocked content from google, and the firewall will kick in. So it’s a bit of a stretch to describe google hits as illicit content. Google images perhaps, but even then if the source page of the image is blocked, the image will be too.
d) It doesn’t change the fact that the buck stops at those who own the computers on which the content is served.

Note that nowhere is hosting an issue, but the provision of access to offensive content.

Rubbish.

Yea yea the internet is a series of tubes. You’re making distinctions without a difference.

Running out of gloss yet?

The same level of specificity the court applies in banning facebook, google, wikipedia, youtube and now twitter applies to the ‘internet’ in general. Good and bad content (regardless of which server the binary files are fetched from). Ban the good and the bad.

I’ve already commented on this. Are you suggesting that if they were more specific, you would have endorsed the ban? I doubt it…talking about making distinctions without a difference…

The speeding analogy is completely wrong. Only reason speeders dont get tickets is if they’re not caught. When I say PTA can easily ‘catch’ them you switch the analogy to say oh but the others are walking.

It’s spot on, from the point of view I was comming from. You suggested that the ban was inappropriate because it was arbitrary…not all would get punished equally. Yes PTA has the capability to switch things on and off…but the point is, that would be an exercise of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. NOT that whatever reasoning behind any ban of a single corporation, be it FB or Google, would lead you down the slippery slope of banning the whole net.

In other words, yes…it is very much possible to support a ban on FB, and not endanger oursleves of supporting a ban of the Net…or Air…or Water…or Paper.

Does this mean we need to bow over and support PTA in all of it’s actions? No.

Hah. The irony of saying that when within two days our wonderfully vigilant authorities have subsequently banned google, twitter, wikipedia, youtube. Infact certain providers, unable to comply with banning just facebook bans, had to turn their internet services completely off.

I’ve stated my position clearly from the get go: as far as PTA is concerned, I understand the FB ban, but not really google et all. As news emerges, it seems a lot of the blockages are due to inane policies, and lack of tech savvy management at PTA.

Great so you acknowlege the ‘how’. As for Site X has illegal content, Site X is blocked, thats about as banal an argument as can be made. The sky is blue so it is blue.

Unh…no…illegal=>blocked. Not illegal=>illegal. Yes, it is a banal reasnoing, it’s amazing why so many people can’t grasp such a simple concept.

[picoico]

@ravage

the only thing in common with pirate bay is that its a banned site. but that has never been my argument. that sites can be banned for illegal behavior is not under question. the reasons given, the manner in which it is done, the lack of specificity of the ban enabling applicability to pretty much every large site that has user generated content, the timing of it, the publicity given to the group is what I have been criticising.

Interesting...not apparent from first post, where it seems that anyone who supported a ban on FB, for whatever reason related to the event of May 20th, was being challenged.

[quote]

Because of the lack of specificity in the ruling, allowing to ban any site with user generated content and relatively open moderation rules (as subsequent actions showed). The .com domain can be seen to be an organization (though not privately owned) operated by verisign. A lot of sites on the .com domain are offensive in content. verisign makes a profit from operating the .com domain. Ban .com.

[/quote]

Occam razor fails.

[quote]

Heres where you tried to do a little dodge. In the previous analogy for your 'slippery slope' google et al were speeders who didnt get tickets. Now they're just walkers :)

[/quote]

Not really... different contexts. In one, google is a corp that would refuse to abide by local laws. In the other, google is a company that doesn't provide content, but uses the same medium as others which provides illegal content.

[Ambassador1]

Re: Ban the Internet

samb, sorry to address you here but I need to say this.

I cannot find the post I read from you in which you had suggested to ban all the mosques & religions. Look this is exactly what the anti pak elements want to do in Pakistan. Exactly the same system they had in russia. No freedom to practice religion. By using these Pakistani fasaadi goats & ninjas, they want to scare the common Pakistani followers of Islam so much from their own faith (Islam - peace) so that they would either end up becoming asthiests or non-believers or demand banning of all kinds of faith, just like in old russia. Look, I know it is really hard but we all normal & moderate followers of Islam need to be very strong............... We really need to be strong enough not to lose our patience. Because that is what they (satanists) want us to become. Athiests, non-believers & extremely bitter about the whole religion thing.

Please believe that our religion is not evil like these tools of the satanists (talibotics). What is evil is these brainless goats & ninjas - tools of these satanists who are making our beautiful faith look like garbage through them. So, stay strong in your beliefs. Do not let the satanists' plan for Pakistani & muslim believers make you exactly what they want you to become by scaring us through these fasadi goats & ninjas.

[samb]

Re: Ban the Internet

Ambassador1,

sorry I have to disagree with you. I don't know about who is conspiring to do what.

my opinion is based on my experiences and observations. religion (every one of them) is useless. it is nothing but a tool to control and manipulate people especially poor people. just look at Pakistan. perfect example. they use religious teachings to brainwash poor people. when it suits them they preach sabar and shukar to the masses. when it suits them they inflame their emotions and send them out to the streets. it is useless. and as education, economic prosperity becomes widespread, religion will become even more irrelevant. dogmatic teachings cannot replace common sense.

[cricketplaya]

@samb

Ambassador1,

sorry I have to disagree with you. I don’t know about who is conspiring to do what.

my opinion is based on my experiences and observations. religion (every one of them) is useless. it is nothing but a tool to control and manipulate people especially poor people. just look at Pakistan. perfect example. they use religious teachings to brainwash poor people. when it suits them they preach sabar and shukar to the masses. when it suits them they inflame their emotions and send them out to the streets. it is useless. and as education, economic prosperity becomes widespread, religion will become even more irrelevant. dogmatic teachings cannot replace common sense.

lol then stop using religion to back up your arguments.

I love GS.