Facebook Said to Block Pages Critical of Muhammad to Avoid Shutdown in Turkey(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Facebook Said to Block Pages Critical of Muhammad to Avoid Shutdown in Turkey
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/world/europe/facebook-said-to-block-pages-on-muhammad-to-avoid-ban-in-turkey.html
82 comments
> Which means they could still revolt and massively vote against the ruling party
Yeah, keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better about it. The fact is that they did revolt, and they were massively repressed. It happened just before Ukraine blew up; and nobody in the US establishment cared one little bit.
Ataturk is long dead. The secular army and judiciary have been cut to size by de-facto dictator Erdoğan, who uses Islam in the way less-enlightened countries have done for decades now. The hard truth is that Turkey is now the new Saudi Arabia: a country NATO cannot live without, but ruled by people supporting interests and values very different from official "Western" ones.
The view here in Europe is that we've basically given up on Turkey as a secular partner, and they will never be allowed to join the EU while Erdogan is around; but NATO can't do without them, and that's a big problem.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better about it. The fact is that they did revolt, and they were massively repressed. It happened just before Ukraine blew up; and nobody in the US establishment cared one little bit.
Ataturk is long dead. The secular army and judiciary have been cut to size by de-facto dictator Erdoğan, who uses Islam in the way less-enlightened countries have done for decades now. The hard truth is that Turkey is now the new Saudi Arabia: a country NATO cannot live without, but ruled by people supporting interests and values very different from official "Western" ones.
The view here in Europe is that we've basically given up on Turkey as a secular partner, and they will never be allowed to join the EU while Erdogan is around; but NATO can't do without them, and that's a big problem.
>The view here in Europe is that we've basically given up on Turkey as a secular partner,
The EU long ago snubbed Turkey, well before the autocratic tendencies of Erdogan appeared. If the EU reached out then and put Turkey officialy on a path to membership, it may have helped turn the course. Erdogan saw that he got a better reception aligning towards the Muslim middle east than secular Europe.
The EU long ago snubbed Turkey, well before the autocratic tendencies of Erdogan appeared. If the EU reached out then and put Turkey officialy on a path to membership, it may have helped turn the course. Erdogan saw that he got a better reception aligning towards the Muslim middle east than secular Europe.
> The EU long ago snubbed Turkey, well before the autocratic tendencies of Erdogan appeared.
It takes two to tango. Subsequent Turkish governments basically refused to address the problems of both Cyprus and Kurdistan. Northern Cyprus in particular needs a real roadmap to normalization, you can't ask the EU to include "far west" territories. Everything else could have been sorted out one way or the other.
It takes two to tango. Subsequent Turkish governments basically refused to address the problems of both Cyprus and Kurdistan. Northern Cyprus in particular needs a real roadmap to normalization, you can't ask the EU to include "far west" territories. Everything else could have been sorted out one way or the other.
There you go again ( not you, personnaly)... People voting for or agreeing with radical islamism has unfortunately nothing to do with us, or richness, or education. It's an internal struggle inside the muslim world between secular and fundamentalism of the same kind we had in the 17th and 18th century.
If we had accepted turkey in europe, nothing says we wouldn't have ended up with the exact same situation, except without border control between us and them.
If we had accepted turkey in europe, nothing says we wouldn't have ended up with the exact same situation, except without border control between us and them.
"The secular army and judiciary have been"
The true oppressors for many decades, good riddance.
"The hard truth is that Turkey is now the new Saudi Arabia"
Bollocks. Have you been to both countries? it is like day and night. Google the covers of "Penguen dergisi" or "Leman dergisi" or "Lombak dergisi", "uykusuz dergisi" some popular weekly caricature magazines in Turkey.
Current government had made many big mistakes, some unforgivable ones related to internet and freedoms but your comments are utter bs.
The true oppressors for many decades, good riddance.
"The hard truth is that Turkey is now the new Saudi Arabia"
Bollocks. Have you been to both countries? it is like day and night. Google the covers of "Penguen dergisi" or "Leman dergisi" or "Lombak dergisi", "uykusuz dergisi" some popular weekly caricature magazines in Turkey.
Current government had made many big mistakes, some unforgivable ones related to internet and freedoms but your comments are utter bs.
> Bollocks. Have you been to both countries?
That's not the point. The point is that, from a NATO point of view, they are both necessary allies but also de-facto adversaries on many chessboards. It's not a secret that Turkey is helping IS in the Kurdish regions, for example; like it's not a secret that SA helps radical militias the US reportedly opposes. They simply have different long-term strategic objectives from NATO's, including a different view of the role of religion as instrument of power.
That's not the point. The point is that, from a NATO point of view, they are both necessary allies but also de-facto adversaries on many chessboards. It's not a secret that Turkey is helping IS in the Kurdish regions, for example; like it's not a secret that SA helps radical militias the US reportedly opposes. They simply have different long-term strategic objectives from NATO's, including a different view of the role of religion as instrument of power.
" It's not a secret that Turkey is helping IS in the Kurdish regions"
No this is again BS. Why would Turkey has any benefit from a bunch of murderers? BTW SA is not a Nato member you just can not put Turkey and SA in the same bucket.
> Why would Turkey has any benefit from a bunch of murderers?
Because they keep splitting Kurdish territory, weakening Kurdish positions that are instrumental if Kurds are ever to get full statehood -- which would would immediately result in claims over currently-Turkish territory as part of independent Kurdistan. Enemy of my enemy...
> BTW SA is not a Nato member
Not strictly-speaking, but in practice it's one of the staunchest US allies in the region, on par with Israel. The US built a lot of installations there in the last 20 years, then relinquished them to SA and proceeded to sell them Nato-grade weaponry. If shit started to fly with Putin tomorrow, Saudi Arabia would be on NATO's side, no question.
Because they keep splitting Kurdish territory, weakening Kurdish positions that are instrumental if Kurds are ever to get full statehood -- which would would immediately result in claims over currently-Turkish territory as part of independent Kurdistan. Enemy of my enemy...
> BTW SA is not a Nato member
Not strictly-speaking, but in practice it's one of the staunchest US allies in the region, on par with Israel. The US built a lot of installations there in the last 20 years, then relinquished them to SA and proceeded to sell them Nato-grade weaponry. If shit started to fly with Putin tomorrow, Saudi Arabia would be on NATO's side, no question.
As someone who lives in a country with heavy censorship, I disagree with your opinion. I'd rather have a censored Facebook/Youtube/etc. than nothing at all. Thinking that you are helping Turkish people by denying them access to Facebook because it will "wake them up to what fascist regime they live in" is really a twisted line of thought. Also Turkey is a democracy, not a fascist state. The fact is that Erdogan is actually (relatively) popular in Turkey.
To me, Turkey is on the verge of becoming really scrwed. It's still possible for them to change their path. The situation is much much different than, let's say, China where the situation is far too deeply rooted.
All they need are wake-up calls, and having Facebook unavailable could have been one that would have helped realize their dear loved president is blocking a website for a damn cartoon (and putting journalists in jail as well).
All they need are wake-up calls, and having Facebook unavailable could have been one that would have helped realize their dear loved president is blocking a website for a damn cartoon (and putting journalists in jail as well).
Since you live in a country with heavy censorship, I'll try to be sensitive to the fact that you and I have different cultural norms as relates to acceptable trade-offs between free speech and access to personal-communication networks.
In the United States also have popular, elected officials that from time to time choose to censor the citizens which put them in office. Neither the fact that we live in a democracy nor the current popularity of the elected official are popular reasons given as to why we should not protest the infringement of basic rights such as the right to free speech, the right to assemble, or the freedom of the press. The right to protest is granted by our constitution, the same constitution which determines our form of government and the grants the authority of the elected officials. Outside of elections, popularity is not a constitutional basis for authority. So that's the legal side of things.
How about the sociopolitical side of things? Well, stepping into your shoes, some foreign company coming into America and telling me what I can and can't say. Nope. Not gonna fly. Twisted or whatever, this is America, fuck yeah. There's gonna be a world governance organization? Fine, put it in Manhattan so we can keep it in line. We're gonna spy on our citizenry? Fine, but only because we must fight foreign terrorists. And, if we're gonna do it, we're gonna do it right, with contract employees. No boobs on the television, that's cool too; it keeps my super prudish mother-in-law comfortable while I still have easy access to the best porn in the world (uncensored Internet baby, because why, that's right: FREE EFFIN SPEECH). (disclosure: i actually take issue with the objectification and commoditization of bodies which serves as the foundation for the vast majority of pornography. but hey, you can't pick and choose when it comes to free speech.)
I know that at this point you're already convinced and are rushing out the door so that you and your friends can begin building your own pirate wireless mesh network with which you'll be open the flood gates to the world's miracles and evils. But let me give you a few more reasons to say: “Fuck censorship!”: David Lee Roth, Stanley Kubrick, Mark Twain, Hustler, Rambo, Deep Throat (Watergate), California, Malcom X, Will Ferrell. America. Fuck yeah.
And in the end, you just might even be able to speak your mind in public without being thrown in jail and denied due process. Ahhhhhhh, the little things.
In the United States also have popular, elected officials that from time to time choose to censor the citizens which put them in office. Neither the fact that we live in a democracy nor the current popularity of the elected official are popular reasons given as to why we should not protest the infringement of basic rights such as the right to free speech, the right to assemble, or the freedom of the press. The right to protest is granted by our constitution, the same constitution which determines our form of government and the grants the authority of the elected officials. Outside of elections, popularity is not a constitutional basis for authority. So that's the legal side of things.
How about the sociopolitical side of things? Well, stepping into your shoes, some foreign company coming into America and telling me what I can and can't say. Nope. Not gonna fly. Twisted or whatever, this is America, fuck yeah. There's gonna be a world governance organization? Fine, put it in Manhattan so we can keep it in line. We're gonna spy on our citizenry? Fine, but only because we must fight foreign terrorists. And, if we're gonna do it, we're gonna do it right, with contract employees. No boobs on the television, that's cool too; it keeps my super prudish mother-in-law comfortable while I still have easy access to the best porn in the world (uncensored Internet baby, because why, that's right: FREE EFFIN SPEECH). (disclosure: i actually take issue with the objectification and commoditization of bodies which serves as the foundation for the vast majority of pornography. but hey, you can't pick and choose when it comes to free speech.)
I know that at this point you're already convinced and are rushing out the door so that you and your friends can begin building your own pirate wireless mesh network with which you'll be open the flood gates to the world's miracles and evils. But let me give you a few more reasons to say: “Fuck censorship!”: David Lee Roth, Stanley Kubrick, Mark Twain, Hustler, Rambo, Deep Throat (Watergate), California, Malcom X, Will Ferrell. America. Fuck yeah.
And in the end, you just might even be able to speak your mind in public without being thrown in jail and denied due process. Ahhhhhhh, the little things.
How can Zuckerberg say "Je Suis Charlie", and then censor the very kind of content that Charlie Hebdo published?
https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101844454210771
If you take the position that it's necessary to build censorship machinery into Facebook, then say that.
But when you build tools that enable surveillance and repression, and when you collaborate with autocratic regimes to limit free expression, you can no longer claim "I am Charlie".
https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101844454210771
If you take the position that it's necessary to build censorship machinery into Facebook, then say that.
But when you build tools that enable surveillance and repression, and when you collaborate with autocratic regimes to limit free expression, you can no longer claim "I am Charlie".
In the post you linked, he specifically says:
"We follow the laws in each country, but we never let one country or group of people dictate what people can share across the world."
And in the submitted link:
"The company acted to comply with an order from a Turkish court..."
They're blocking access to the material from users in Turkey.
"We follow the laws in each country, but we never let one country or group of people dictate what people can share across the world."
And in the submitted link:
"The company acted to comply with an order from a Turkish court..."
They're blocking access to the material from users in Turkey.
No one is surprised when corporate reptiles act like corporate reptiles. The remarkable circumstance is that they act like themselves, but talk as if they are courageous paragons of the Enlightenment. The complaint is not that Zuck attempts to maximize revenue from the Turkish user base, but that he simultaneously highlights a conflicting "commitment" to free expression. The net impression is one of an odd, misplaced pride in a complete surrender of ethics to pragmatism.
I don't think it's right that only "corporate reptiles" should bother to comply with the laws of the countries in which they operate.
Your position seems to be that the only moral thing to do in the face of an ethical commitment that conflicts with a legal commitment, is to either disregard the legal commitment or realign your business so you are not subject to it. But, when the conflict is sufficiently limited (see below), and dodging the legal obligation would also compromise your ethical commitment, what's wrong with, say, complying with the legal commitments while agitating to have it changed?
Is it your view that the people of Turkey would be better off, from a free expression perspective, with no Facebook at all than with a Facebook that obeys domestic laws requiring it to remove a very limited amount of content? The situation might be different if we were talking about a government that required Facebook to drastically and systematically distort the discourse on its service (as in China, by many accounts). But here we're just talking about removing a few imagines deemed to be highly offensive to the dominant religion.
Your position seems to be that the only moral thing to do in the face of an ethical commitment that conflicts with a legal commitment, is to either disregard the legal commitment or realign your business so you are not subject to it. But, when the conflict is sufficiently limited (see below), and dodging the legal obligation would also compromise your ethical commitment, what's wrong with, say, complying with the legal commitments while agitating to have it changed?
Is it your view that the people of Turkey would be better off, from a free expression perspective, with no Facebook at all than with a Facebook that obeys domestic laws requiring it to remove a very limited amount of content? The situation might be different if we were talking about a government that required Facebook to drastically and systematically distort the discourse on its service (as in China, by many accounts). But here we're just talking about removing a few imagines deemed to be highly offensive to the dominant religion.
Zuck is the one claiming to value the dissemination of various images of Mohammed, by parroting that slogan. It isn't a stretch to find his simultaneous censoring of such images to contradict that claim. If all he cared to do was lament violence, he could have said something inoffensive like "why can't we all just get along?" That's not what he said.
The "people of Turkey", like all people, would be better off if they valued free speech more than religious sensibilities. Eventually they will, but that's probably a few decades off, and at any rate it's unlikely to be the result of "agitation" by a rich Western asshole like Zuck, or the judgment of assholes like us on HN. In the meantime, I find public dishonesty unethical. If Zuck felt that way, perhaps he'd stop advocating this position while simultaneously working against it.
The "people of Turkey", like all people, would be better off if they valued free speech more than religious sensibilities. Eventually they will, but that's probably a few decades off, and at any rate it's unlikely to be the result of "agitation" by a rich Western asshole like Zuck, or the judgment of assholes like us on HN. In the meantime, I find public dishonesty unethical. If Zuck felt that way, perhaps he'd stop advocating this position while simultaneously working against it.
> we never let one country or group of people dictate what people can share across the world
That's even more hypocritical, given that Facebook itself enforces its own prudish values on the rest of the world by systematically censoring harmless and completely legal content because "omg, boobies!".
Zuckerberg saying "Je suis Charlie" makes me want to throw up. If there is one other force besides reactionary muslims that has a chilling effect on the freedom of expression and liberal values in progressive Western countries, it's the dominance of reactionary American tech companies like Facebook.
That's even more hypocritical, given that Facebook itself enforces its own prudish values on the rest of the world by systematically censoring harmless and completely legal content because "omg, boobies!".
Zuckerberg saying "Je suis Charlie" makes me want to throw up. If there is one other force besides reactionary muslims that has a chilling effect on the freedom of expression and liberal values in progressive Western countries, it's the dominance of reactionary American tech companies like Facebook.
> How can Zuckerberg say "Je Suis Charlie", and then censor the very kind of content that Charlie Hebdo published?
Oh that's easy when you become a hypocrite.
Oh that's easy when you become a hypocrite.
> How can Zuckerberg say "Je Suis Charlie", and then censor the very kind of content that Charlie Hebdo published?
Did you see which politicians and world leaders where at the Je Suis Charlie march ?
Did you see what laws are currently passed in France in response to the killings ?
It's just posture and hypocrisy.
Did you see which politicians and world leaders where at the Je Suis Charlie march ?
Did you see what laws are currently passed in France in response to the killings ?
It's just posture and hypocrisy.
Yes, that's why he's calling it out. What's your point? Should we not care about this case, because others are abusing it as well? Two wrongs don't make a right. Two hundred wrongs neither.
It sounds trite, but you're changing the subject. And when every post like OP's has a reply of the tone "Pff why do you even bother naming and shaming one guy who did wrong; don't you know everybody's making a farce of Je Suis Charlie?", it conveys hopelessness. It's demoralizing and it's a conversation killer.
We get it. Every politician is a hypocrite. Okay. Can we stop using it as a condescending dismissal of valid points, now, please?
I, for one, would love to know more about the specific details of Zuckerberg's alleged hypocrisy, so I can judge for myself.
Edit: ps: Upvoted you because I agree. I just want to highlight that your post should not be taken as a rebuttal against OP.
It sounds trite, but you're changing the subject. And when every post like OP's has a reply of the tone "Pff why do you even bother naming and shaming one guy who did wrong; don't you know everybody's making a farce of Je Suis Charlie?", it conveys hopelessness. It's demoralizing and it's a conversation killer.
We get it. Every politician is a hypocrite. Okay. Can we stop using it as a condescending dismissal of valid points, now, please?
I, for one, would love to know more about the specific details of Zuckerberg's alleged hypocrisy, so I can judge for myself.
Edit: ps: Upvoted you because I agree. I just want to highlight that your post should not be taken as a rebuttal against OP.
I didn't want to call OP out, I was just surprised that he was himself surprised by the dichotomy between Zuckerberg public stance and Facebook actions.
And yes I'm glad this kind of behavior is exposed but I also don't expect companies to be freedom warriors.
And yes I'm glad this kind of behavior is exposed but I also don't expect companies to be freedom warriors.
That's right. Leaders who impose draconian censorship on their own populations and throw journalists in jail are literally leading the parade for free expression.
Leaders like Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
So add Zuckerberg to this ignominious list. He collaborates with these regimes to repress their citizens, then sanctimoniously shouts "I am Charlie" from the world's biggest megaphone.
Makes me physically sick.
Leaders like Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
So add Zuckerberg to this ignominious list. He collaborates with these regimes to repress their citizens, then sanctimoniously shouts "I am Charlie" from the world's biggest megaphone.
Makes me physically sick.
Not letting a country 'bully' or dictate a site like Facebook is one thing but a valid legal request that has been granted by a court in a given country is something completely different.
People seem to think that Facebook is doing this just to bow to pressure from certain groups but in reality it is just that they have been legally instructed to do so, if they were to fail to do this then access to Facebook would likely be severed by the Turkish ISP's under another legal order.
People seem to think that Facebook is doing this just to bow to pressure from certain groups but in reality it is just that they have been legally instructed to do so, if they were to fail to do this then access to Facebook would likely be severed by the Turkish ISP's under another legal order.
Facebook doesn't have phisical presence[1] on turkey, so why do they obey Turkeys laws?
[1]https://www.facebook.com/careers#locations
[1]https://www.facebook.com/careers#locations
Because they provide a service in Turkey and would like to continue signing up Turkish users. The internet, as you have observed, certainly does present interesting legal and, in particular, jurisdictional conundrums. But, for better or worse, it is well established that you do not need a physical pretense in a country to be bound by their laws.
as I am not in turkey and the content is not illegal in my country why do I have to receive the censorship as well?
[EDIT] If facebook is advocating the freedom of speech I would expect that they would show the content at least to the users that are not under censorship.
[EDIT] If facebook is advocating the freedom of speech I would expect that they would show the content at least to the users that are not under censorship.
I think this is a fair question, though it has little to do with the jurisdiction of Turkish courts. There are two very different possible answers: it could be that the Turkish order requires photos to be removed, not just hidden from Turkish users or it could be that Facebook isn't set up to hide content in some regions and not others -- censoring the images in only a few jurisdictions would take work.
If it's the former, I think there's no sense in being annoyed with Facebook. We should direct our ire at the Turkish court. If it's the latter, though, perhaps people are right to call Facebook out for not making this happen.
If it's the former, I think there's no sense in being annoyed with Facebook. We should direct our ire at the Turkish court. If it's the latter, though, perhaps people are right to call Facebook out for not making this happen.
I think we understand that FB access would be denied in Turkey if they didn't remove the posts. We simply disagree that this is reasonable justification for removing the posts.
[deleted]
>How can Zuckerberg say "Je Suis Charlie", and then censor the very kind of content that Charlie Hebdo published?
Because PR.
Because PR.
Zuck does not use his medium to spread anti-Islamic content. Charlie Hebdo did.
Here what Zuck did was uphold a nation's choice to block content in that country that did not conform to the views of that country. It has NOTHING to do with Charlie Hebdo.
Here what Zuck did was uphold a nation's choice to block content in that country that did not conform to the views of that country. It has NOTHING to do with Charlie Hebdo.
> Here what Zuck did was uphold a nation's choice to block content in that country that did not conform to the views of that country.
It isn't the nation's choice, it's the government's choice. It's a political decision to support the policies of the Turkish government.
It isn't the nation's choice, it's the government's choice. It's a political decision to support the policies of the Turkish government.
If the government was chosen by the people (as is in the case of Turkey), it is the nation's choice. Otherwise, there is little indication that the people of the nation choose different.
And it is not a political decision as the verdict came from the courts.
And it is not a political decision as the verdict came from the courts.
If a "nation's choice" is over what individuals are allowed to see and read, isn't that just an euphemism for fascism?
What possible ethical principle could lead someone to assume that the collective has the right to decide what an individual can read?
What possible ethical principle could lead someone to assume that the collective has the right to decide what an individual can read?
The 'organized ignorance' that is religion is exactly the principle you speak of.
I am not sure, what possible ethical principle leads people to censor words and pictures which they deem unsuitable in any nation?
The debate on free speech is complicated because it is presented in different ways depending on the circumstance. For example, an video that could be considered anti-Semitic might be quietly removed for violations of terms of service, or blocked in some countries (e.g. "Jews Lead Gun Control Charge" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zy227hN5B0) while a video that could be considered anti-Muslim is only blocked with loud protestations (e.g. Innocence of Muslims https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au6tbb9Zgkw).
Which issues are cast as free speech issues is a highly political matter.
Which issues are cast as free speech issues is a highly political matter.
This conflation of "anti-Islam" and "criticizing Islam" is what's holding us up. Those in the West should reserve the right to criticize the tenets of Islam (of which there is plenty to criticize) without being slandered as anti-Islam.
Similarly with Judaism. There is a distinction between 'criticizing Judaism' and being 'anti-Semitic.' Let's figure this out.
In both cases we should be making these distinctions without resorting to slurs and violence.
Similarly with Judaism. There is a distinction between 'criticizing Judaism' and being 'anti-Semitic.' Let's figure this out.
In both cases we should be making these distinctions without resorting to slurs and violence.
This conflation of "anti-Islam" and "criticizing Islam" is what's holding us up.
You will find this conflation in just about any widely distributed group of people you can imagine. It extends from Islamists, to Jews, to feminists, and that's just off the top of my head. There are certainly more.
People who parrot the "criticizing X means harassing members of group X" angle shouldn't be given the time of day, and yet, they are. It's a surprisingly effective tactic for shutting down debate, since apparently being called "anti-X" has become a worse thing than actually taking concrete action against X.
You will find this conflation in just about any widely distributed group of people you can imagine. It extends from Islamists, to Jews, to feminists, and that's just off the top of my head. There are certainly more.
People who parrot the "criticizing X means harassing members of group X" angle shouldn't be given the time of day, and yet, they are. It's a surprisingly effective tactic for shutting down debate, since apparently being called "anti-X" has become a worse thing than actually taking concrete action against X.
Imo I don't think a distinction should be made, as it is sure to be biased. What is called "anti-semitic" should just be where in belongs, as free speech.
Being called 'anti-Semitic' because you dared to criticize the actions of Israel shuts down debate and effectively removes certain areas of conversation from free speech.
It is possible to criticize fundamentalist Judaism, and the actions of Israel, without being anti-Semitic.
At the exact same time, it is possible to criticize the many illiberal components of fundamentalist Islam without being anti-Islamic.
It is only because we accept that some areas are 'off limits' for conversation that these conflations are allowed to be made.
It is possible to criticize fundamentalist Judaism, and the actions of Israel, without being anti-Semitic.
At the exact same time, it is possible to criticize the many illiberal components of fundamentalist Islam without being anti-Islamic.
It is only because we accept that some areas are 'off limits' for conversation that these conflations are allowed to be made.
Just like criticising my government here in Australia doesn't make me a Communist. It's the same debate tactics that have been used since the 50's, just applied more widely. It makes me sad, but emotional manipulation is difficult to fight without sinking to their level.
Muslim hate speech is rampant across the media. But Muslims hardly ever raise a finger at such issues. However, when the issue is desecration of religion, Muslims go nuts.
This contrasts with Judaism. Anti-judaism speech is ok. Anti-semitic speech is not.
To me, it's more of a preference of identity. Either I identify me by faith, or I identify me by my people.
This contrasts with Judaism. Anti-judaism speech is ok. Anti-semitic speech is not.
To me, it's more of a preference of identity. Either I identify me by faith, or I identify me by my people.
It's not a perfect contrast because "Jewish" describes both a people and a religion whereas "Muslim" is only a religious designation.
In the West - America, at least - religious bigotry seems more acceptable than racial bigotry. Bigotry against Muslims is not, then, the same thing as bigotry against, say, Arabs.
In the West - America, at least - religious bigotry seems more acceptable than racial bigotry. Bigotry against Muslims is not, then, the same thing as bigotry against, say, Arabs.
I'm from Turkey and this situation is just pathetic.
It's just "if visitor.country = 'turkey' then post.visibility = false".
Every person in the world except people from Turkey can see everyting. We are putting our head in the sand and screaming "trolololo we can't hear you".
A whistleblower account on twitter? disable it to users from turkey. A youtube video with phone call transcripts about corruption between prime minister and some corporation offical? disable it to users from turkey. Same conversation uploaded to soundcloud? meh, just disable it to users from turkey. What about a paper about some government corruption? disable slideshare.
Everyone knows what a corrupt country we are. except us.
It's just "if visitor.country = 'turkey' then post.visibility = false".
Every person in the world except people from Turkey can see everyting. We are putting our head in the sand and screaming "trolololo we can't hear you".
A whistleblower account on twitter? disable it to users from turkey. A youtube video with phone call transcripts about corruption between prime minister and some corporation offical? disable it to users from turkey. Same conversation uploaded to soundcloud? meh, just disable it to users from turkey. What about a paper about some government corruption? disable slideshare.
Everyone knows what a corrupt country we are. except us.
You should revolt, period. It may mean risking your life, but if people like you don't and instead choose to run away, then your country is going to fall for an unknown period into a medieval age.
Read everything you can about the french resistance, start creating networks, go underground, and organize ties with foreign countries ready to help you. But don't run away.
Read everything you can about the french resistance, start creating networks, go underground, and organize ties with foreign countries ready to help you. But don't run away.
> You should revolt, period. It may mean risking your life, but if people like you don't and instead choose to run away, then your country is going to fall for an unknown period into a medieval age.
Such an arrogant view of the world. The chosen route of Turkey is to preserve the serenity and innocence of it's population, by prohibiting pictures of the prophet much like wardrobe malfunctions are prohibited in the USA. This is not medieval at all , but rather a more refined approach to civilisation than your american upbringing has taught you to appreciate.
Such an arrogant view of the world. The chosen route of Turkey is to preserve the serenity and innocence of it's population, by prohibiting pictures of the prophet much like wardrobe malfunctions are prohibited in the USA. This is not medieval at all , but rather a more refined approach to civilisation than your american upbringing has taught you to appreciate.
I can only hope this route will lead you to barbarism, poverty and assimilation by more successful cultures.
Limiting freedom of expression is never refined.
> Limiting freedom of expression is never refined.
Only the most unrefined brute speaks what's on his mind without limits.
I would say that it is highly refined to know when limits should be applied, and when they should not.
Only the most unrefined brute speaks what's on his mind without limits.
I would say that it is highly refined to know when limits should be applied, and when they should not.
The difference is restraining yourself vs being restrained. A brutish response to the latter is the civil response.
bsaul(1)
Ah, Facebook. Just when I'm starting to feel some sympathy thanks to your considerable open source work.
I mean, Google drops China to avoid collaborating with their censorship demands, but Facebook can't afford to drop Turkey?
I mean, Google drops China to avoid collaborating with their censorship demands, but Facebook can't afford to drop Turkey?
This one was easy. Just drop Turkey on Facebook. The fact that they didn't was weak - Turkey does not represent a huge slice of their userbase, they could easily afford to lose it in support of free speech. At one point Google dropped China - a much larger potential market - because of China's demands for Google to become complicit in their censorship.
Isn't that pretty insensitive the large number of Turks (at least 20 million) who identify more with Western values than the conservative Islamic values being imposed on them by the current leadership? Not to mention, FB is very popular over there...especially amongst that demographic.
No - it would ideally cause that (still a minority) portion of Turks who would be most served by a protection of free speech to demand the restoration of Facebook services from their government.
Perhaps the 20 million Turks who are more sympathetic to Western values should be engaged in active debate with the 54 million who apparently aren't.
Perhaps the 20 million Turks who are more sympathetic to Western values should be engaged in active debate with the 54 million who apparently aren't.
West-Aligned Turks are engaged in an active debate and protests [0]. But like you said, they're a minority (a large minority) so they cannot succeed in electing a political party that can restore their Western, Secular values
0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_protests_in_Tur...
0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_protests_in_Tur...
It is still an open question as to whether progressive interests would be better served by having Facebook blocked. Certainly some percentage of conservative Turks use Facebook; blocking Facebook is a decision to forego something they may value. Right now they get to have their pie and eat it too. I'm not sure that is healthy.
What you've posted is idealist but unrealistic and poorly considered imo, especially if you have been following Turkish politics lately. facebook in the West is a lot of people posting funny cat pictures but in a place like Turkey it can be one of the few methods for the Western-leaning Turks to organize and communicate.
I would suggest you read up on the Iranian revolution against the Shah. Your suggestion is exactly what the Shah did on behest of the UK and USA: he came down real hard on the pro-democracy cosmopolitan youth breaking up their meetings and demonstrations. Meanwhile the hardline religious zealots could still go to mosque and organize themselves there. End result: the sort of people we might like to support in Iran were marginalized and the Ayatollah seized power. You're suggesting a similar course of action and I would predict a similar outcome.
I would suggest you read up on the Iranian revolution against the Shah. Your suggestion is exactly what the Shah did on behest of the UK and USA: he came down real hard on the pro-democracy cosmopolitan youth breaking up their meetings and demonstrations. Meanwhile the hardline religious zealots could still go to mosque and organize themselves there. End result: the sort of people we might like to support in Iran were marginalized and the Ayatollah seized power. You're suggesting a similar course of action and I would predict a similar outcome.
Unbelievable. Might as well hand over data of user so they can be tortured and confined by certain countries intelligence/security bodies if it means keeping the user page views up.
Bowing to tyranny makes you a part of that same tyranny. Still, it's facebook, so I'm not exactly surprised.
The original news title says
"Turkish court to block Facebook pages insulting Prophet Muhammad"
http://www.trt.net.tr/english/turkey/2015/01/26/turkish-cour...
"Insulting" and "critical" are not the same thing, so the truth is quite twisted in the NY Times article title.
"Turkish court to block Facebook pages insulting Prophet Muhammad"
http://www.trt.net.tr/english/turkey/2015/01/26/turkish-cour...
"Insulting" and "critical" are not the same thing, so the truth is quite twisted in the NY Times article title.
I think most religious people are going to claim that being critical is the same as being insulting. Can you claim that (for example) being critical about Jesus' deeds is not the same as insulting him?
Both muslims and their western apologists have such huge issues over it, that anything critical at all including the most highly legitimate comments or use of any form of parody at all is immediately decried as 'racist' (even though a religion is not a race) or 'islamophobic', their favourite snarl word.
We all draw a line between "critical" and "insulting", but everyone's line is different. What you consider insulting, I might not, and vice-versa. From your link, it sounds like the banned content was the cover of the latest Charlie Hebdo[1]. Personally, I don't find that insulting or critical of Muhammad. Others may think differently, and they have every right to.
But more importantly: Government-enforced censorship bothers me, even when it's of content I find insulting or offensive. I don't like the state deciding what I'm allowed to see or hear. I'm mature enough to make those decisions for myself.
1. https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-...
But more importantly: Government-enforced censorship bothers me, even when it's of content I find insulting or offensive. I don't like the state deciding what I'm allowed to see or hear. I'm mature enough to make those decisions for myself.
1. https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-...
If we want any kind of constructive interaction, insults must be avoided. Unlike criticism, insult is always malicious, hostile and harmful.
What makes an image malicious, hostile or harmful is still different for each person. I don't see any of that in the latest cover of CH.
What facebook is doing is what some french corporations were doing during ww2. It's called collaboration with a fascist state. ( and no, clearly it's not of the same scale, of course).
Let's not forget that those were cartoons making gentle fun of an IDEA. Just an idea, and nobody is forcing you to have a look at it. They're not making fun of people suffering, they're not trying to have people killed, or spreading hate and anger. First and foremost it's about learning to laugh a bit. But there's one way you can recognize fascists for sure, it's that they have no sense of humour.
Now, even more preoccupyingly, turkey is putting journalists in jail. But they also have a very strong tradition of modernity, and they have a strong army, traditionnaly not aligned with islamist. Which means they could still revolt and massively vote against the ruling party, if they have the chance.
What facebook is doing is saying that nothing outrageous is been done in the country. They're helping the government instead of calling him out.