Slashdot Mirror
Social Networking Spurs Activism Against Repression
The New York Times Magazine is running a story about the rise in political activism in Egypt through sites like Facebook, which allow citizens to gather and share ideas in ways they otherwise aren't allowed. A state-of-emergency law has been active in Egypt since 1981, which, among other things, "allows the government to ban political organizations and makes it illegal for more than five people to gather without a license from the government." As affordable internet access has spread throughout the country, the government is having a much harder time keeping wraps on the ideas of dissidents. Blocking access to the sites isn't a good solution for the government, because many non-dissidents use it for mundane communications. As Harvard's Ethan Zuckerman puts it, "...doing so would alert a large group of people who they can't afford to radicalize."
To the extent that the ban of the Muslim Brotherhood (a theocratic group pushing for stricter religious rule) in Egypt is effective, I say "Bravo!". When people complain about political, religious, or other repression from a government, it's generally a good idea to find out what kind of group exactly is being repressed.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Better Translation:
The people living there, if given the freedom to decide their own fate, will almost certainly call for more violence between Israelis and Muslims, leading to decades of war, in which tens of thousands of innocent people will die. Hence, they should be deprived of such rights, just as I would be, if I openly supported the murder of innocents.
You ought to learn a thing or two about that part of the world before saying that everyone should have the right to freedom of speech and expression. If the Egyptian government collapses, things between Israel and Gaza will get really bad, really fast. Sometimes it's more important to save the lives of thousands of people, rather than let thousands of other people yell hate speech.
The worst internet censorship I saw (haven't been to all the countries in the area, mind) was actually in Tunisia where bogus MSIE error pages would be thrown back at me. In firefox. Not too long after the WSIS conference in fact, to ladle the irony on. Even sites like BoingBoing was blocked, but then I can kind of understand that :) Consider also, if facebook and social networking internet-style was so effective at fostering political opposition, there's be more successful grass-roots opposition in for example Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, etc.
There's been some arrests of bloggers in Egypt, but if you watch the Egyptian blogging community it's pretty clear they can get away with far more than many other countries. Wasn't there legislation being written in Italy that bloggers were to be held up against the same laws as journos?
In any case, with internet penetration being what it is in Egypt, even a very successful digital opposition campaign will only have limited effect on a national aggregate. I wonder if the traditional coffee shop networks or SMS for that matter (if you really want something technological to tout) as a vehicle for collective social action isn't orders of magnitude more effective.
Not to rant too hard (the blogging community there sprang from the LUG I helped set up, so I got to observe in a sense), but as an experiment in citizen media the Egyptian blogging community has at the very least outdone traditional media in one respect: sensationalising. I'd be careful where I dish out my kudos, Mr. New York Times. :)
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
Huh? Why not? Why couldn't we put trade embargoes on them?
You might want to note that we didn't invade Germany during WWII because of what he was doing to his own people. We did it because he invaded other countries.
And don't we have trade restrictions with Iran?
The problem with your reasoning is that it quickly results in the USofA being the "policeman of the world" and our country cannot AFFORD that.
I think that you need to read up on some history.
But you never ask the question WHY the majority of voters in Egypt would WANT to elect them.
It doesn't matter if you outlaw one political party. If the majority of the people have the same beliefs as that political party, then they will, eventually, become the government.
Well, the UN is only a joke in that it is more like a local bar than a local police station: it's job is not military activism, it's job is to facilitate talk. Ideally, crazy people announce some deranged plan of theirs, and the rest of the patrons try to talk them down. It's low cost, and the victories are mostly the lack of anything happening.
Come on. The idea that outsiders can't study and judge a group is completely ignorant. Often, the outside group is more impartial and makes a better judgment.
I'm sure you have more to your viewpoint than what you wrote but simply dismissing somebody's post as "orientalist rhetoric" doesn't bode well. Where's the nuanced and thoughtful post that I've come to expect at slashdot?
Let's take his first statement. "The problem is that they would use force against minorities, against everyone including themselves."
You claim that that is basic orientalist rhetoric, and I assume by that you mean "wrong". However, the Muslim Brotherhood was founded to promote traditional sharia law. Do you disagree with that, or think it's orientalist to call sharia law an oppressive system for non-Muslim minorities?