Slashdot Mirror


Saudi Arabia Bans Facebook

gandhi_2 sends in a brief Associated Press piece on Saudi Arabia's blocking of Facebook. "An official with Saudi Arabia's communications authority says it has blocked Facebook because the popular social networking website doesn't conform with the kingdom's conservative values. ... He says Facebook's content had 'crossed a line' with the kingdom's conservative morals, but that blocking the site is a temporary measure." Some reports indicate that at least some individual Facebook pages can be reached from inside the kingdom. There hasn't been an official announcement; the source noted above requested anonymity. Earlier this year when Pakistan and Bangladesh banned Facebook, it was over particular content — cartoons of Mohammed — and the Saudi ban may prove similar once more details emerge.

21 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. yep... by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... and nothing of value was lost.

    (in either direction, IMO)

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    1. Re:yep... by Jawnn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the contrary, the loss of the right of an entire nation of individuals to access certain media via the Internet is a tragic loss. Yes, the content in question is largely vacuous and no great loss, but the loss of the liberty is definitely not trivial.

    2. Re:yep... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To be precise, they didn't lose liberty. They simply never had it.

    3. Re:yep... by geckipede · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is nowhere near the top of the list of liberties that the Saudis are lacking. Compared to everything else that's already in place, that's been in place for decades, which is accepted... yes, this is trivial.

    4. Re:yep... by El+Torico · · Score: 4, Informative

      And is full of Saudia arabians... It's where they go to look at strippers and drink booze.

      Bahrain is another "entertainment center" for Saudis. The joke in Bahrain is, "Allah cannot see across the causeway."

      I guess now they can go there for alcohol, prostitution, and Facebook.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    5. Re:yep... by kiwimate · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not this tired theme again. We get it - you think it's cool to despise Facebook, a kind of geek goth cred. Whatever.

      For millions of people it's a way to keep in touch with friends and family which is easier and more effective than e-mail or other means, and that has value. For millions more, it's a relatively harmless diversion.

      Deal with it.

  2. Re:temporary measure by linumax · · Score: 3, Funny

    Not really, unlike RIM, it's not practical or even commercially sound for Facebook to abide by KSA's "conservative values". There is also no inherent benefit on Saudi Arabia's part to have Facebook operate there. Except maybe monitoring citizens, but they already have full control over any means of communication so that's just unnecessary.

    The only reason I can see for them calling this a temporary measure is a PR move. They are shifting the blame on Facebook, saying they would unblock it as soon as it's compatible with their values. Of course everyone knows what's going on, but that's how PR works. They opened a university or two to women and last week they got elected to UN's women's rights agency. Maybe now their shooting for a position on Internet Freedoms board.

    .

  3. Unbanned by Loadmaster · · Score: 5, Informative
  4. Internet Blackholes... by Nrrqshrr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, I live in one of those internet black holes, myself. Tunisia. In Tunisia, Youtube, Dailymotion, and many sites were, since 2007, blocked due to "offensive" content (read: politically dissident). What that caused was two things, mainly: More dissidence, and the banalisation of proxies. Right now kids in elementary schools know how to fiddle with proxies and DNS settings to get around the blockade, and despite the govt's sincere efforts, we still watch our vids on youtube (http://www.tekiano.com/net/web-2-0/2-7-1719/youtube-15eme-site-le-plus-visite-en-tunisie.html French blog, sorry). At some point, FB was blocked too, but this nearly caused a riot (Yes, people didn't riot because of a tax increase but they started getting angry when they couldn't play Farmville). This, of course, tought our gov't one thing: being all official about blocking FB is an open invitation to a riot. Thus, they decided to do it diferently and now they block Tunisian IPs from certain pages with... delicate content. (this, I guess, was done hand to hand with Facebook's teams). I do not expect the Saudi gov't to hold on their bloackade for too long, they should play it the smooth way and learn rom their fellow retarded govts.

  5. Some country banned Facebook by $0.02 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Like

    --
    If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
  6. Abdullah Hamed (www.indiesaudi.com) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    everyone,

    I am a saudi who lives in saudi and here is my point of the story.

    Saudi's (communications and information technology) has a solution of the shelf that blocks pornographic sites automatically (we got VPN so dont worry we get our pr0ns).

    This solution keeps its own database and that external database messes up sometimes and blocks stuff that should be blocked. google and secondlife were blocked before and were unblocked. Further more, political website and radical islamic websites are blocked as requested by the government for national security.

    facebook's url that was blocked today was (www.facebook.com/home.php) but if you use (www.facebook.com) it works perfectly. so it apparent that the blocking was due to a mess up in the database of the off the shelf solution.

    any questions? :D

  7. Re:Does anyone really care anymore... by Joe+U · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >> all these backwards countries

    Yeah, and the US government, media and public - all - just love wikileaks, eh? Kudos to hypocrisy.

    I seem to be able to get to wikileaks from the US.

    I seem to be able to make up my own mind about what I can and can not read.

  8. Re:No big surprise here. by TheLink · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If there can be so few "True Atheists", then it seems most people want a "Religion". Whether it one of the popular religions, or worship of the Great Communist Leader, or "Gaia", or "The Best Team in the world, and I'm willing to bash anyone who says otherwise", they just have a need to be part of a Greater Thing.

    Arguably atheism was the initial state (unless you believe the ancestors of humans and primates had religion too which would be interesting ;) ), and then religion emerged and more importantly _outcompeted_ atheism.

    So as long as humans remain humans, plain atheism doesn't look like it would become a large majority. The "substrate" and environment has to change significantly. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

    Even if God etc doesn't exist, as long as the placebo effect exists (and remains significant), certain types of religions will outcompete atheism over the long run. Because strict atheism will pose no net benefits[1], whereas certain religions would produce benefits via the placebo effect. So as long as the net benefits outweigh the costs of a religion, adherents as a whole would benefit more from that religion than from atheism.

    Some religions have/had very high costs of course, but not all. Plus the costs and benefits have to be taken across the group as a whole, because some religions while costing a few individuals a lot (their entire lives in fact), would benefit the group more overall.

    [1] I believe most atheists would say atheism is a result not a cause, producing benefits is not applicable - it's just what happens when you hold a certain world view.

    --
  9. Re:temporary measure by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > ...last week they got elected to UN's women's rights agency.

    You need to put "elected" in sneer quotes. The candidates for these positions are always determined in advance by backroom deals, with the number of candidates normally equalling the number of openings. This one was actually unusual in that there were 11 candidates for 10 positions. Of course, the organization itself only exists for propaganda purposes. It will not benefit women in any way (except for those female politicians who use it to futher their careers).

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  10. Saudi Arabia will destroy itself by Y-Crate · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First off, a little disclaimer:

    Westerners often tend to conflate Wahhabism with Islam, but that is a critical mistake that undermines any clear understanding of the Middle East and Islam itself. The movement has taken Islam from being an unquestioned powerhouse of intellectual and cultural innovation to being perceived as a force of stagnation. Islam is not the problem, the cultural baggage that it is presently burdened with is the issue. Wahhabism itself is only a few centuries old, and in that time it has deeply undermined the perception of Islam in the Western world, and undermined the social, intellectual and economic development of those countries where it has taken root.

    It's why women went from being the closest advisors to the Prophet himself, to being deeply despised and treated as subhuman in certain corners of the Islamic world. The najib, the bourqua, the many, many restrictions on women - these came from outside of Islam, and were integrated into the narrative of what Islam is about. Many in the West fail to understand that Wahhabism and the myriad of ancient tribal customs that were given an opportunity for resurgence are not found in the Qu'ran.

    One can find the seeds of Wahhabism. The passages and the bits of text that would inspire such an interpretation, but to say it is a legitimate part of Islam would be false. (Wahhabists would strongly disagree. ;) )

    But Wahhabism is a factor that must be dealt with regardless of how legitimate it is. So here we find ourselves looking at its biggest proponent - and it's largest victim - Saudi Arabia.

    Saudi Arabia has siphoned its oil wealth off to fund the lifestyle of countless princes vaguely related to the royal family, while the rest of the young-skewing country faces unemployment and poverty.

    The ruling class has tried to embrace the radical Wahhabist interpretation of Islam and use it as a uniting force in the country, while accumulating for itself the material pleasures of modernity purchased with the natural resources of the nation. It hasn't really worked. It's resulted in the aforementioned elites living the high life, while the impoverished masses watch the encroachment of western culture they are taught to despise.

    It's a nation ruled by oppression and undermined with a deep-seated cognitive dissonance regarding technology, culture, religion and how it all interacts on a moral and practical level.

    It's a climate that is intellectually bankrupt, as it crushes new ideas while longing for the modernity it simultaneously craves / despises. It wants to mesh 16th century mores with 21st century technology. So far it has operated under the illusion that such things are possible, as the country has simply purchased what it desires from the West. But it doesn't develop much of anything on its own. The culture of Wahhabism silences innovation. It creates an environment where fear, oppression, absolutely pathological misogyny are entrenched in the social and legal fabric of the nation.

    Saudi Arabia has tried to improve its position by having students study overseas, but they quickly become deeply alienated from the world that stands so far apart from the one they come from. Ideally, the men (and they are almost always men) would return with new ideas and new perspectives. But they so often end up bitter radicals. They see how their nation is widely perceived as a backwards ocean of sand that is valued for its oil and little else. Furthermore, the Western world they encounter is full of temptations they have been groomed to hate, but the promise of economic prosperity they cannot hope to find at home.

    The home they return to is a stifling environment of institutionalized corruption (the name Saudi Arabia literally means "Arabia that belongs to the House of Saud"), intellectual stagnation where new ideas are deeply frowned upon, and constant reminders of the morally corrupt world they've left behind.

    What hope is there for a country like that?

    Even if they didn't come back a

    1. Re:Saudi Arabia will destroy itself by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Suggesting Islam was progressive and open to different opinions before the rise of Wahhabism is dishonest. Even during Islam's golden age, the main schools of Islamic jurisprudence ascribed fewer rights to non-Muslims. Pushing Christians and Jews down into second-class citizens happened in the generations following Muhammad; it wasn't something done much later by decadent rulers that fell from some higher ideal.

      One perhaps cannot blame Islam as a whole -- you still have way out there sects like the Ismailis who call themselves Muslims even as they reject most of the teachings generally considered to form Islam -- but one can certainly blame 90-something percent of it, and thus for the sake of economy of words, it's reasonable to speak of how Islam itself is the problem.

    2. Re:Saudi Arabia will destroy itself by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The movement has taken Islam from being an unquestioned powerhouse of intellectual and cultural innovation to being perceived as a force of stagnation

      Your whole post founders on this misrepresentation. Islam was never a powerhouse of anything. Arabic people, under less repressive versions of Islam, managed to make some significant progress. but Islam itself, like almost all religions at almost all times, is a repressive force that imposes false beliefs in non-existent entities on children, who then grow up with crippled critical thinking facilities, not to mention more gullibility than they ought to carry and a good dose of fear inculcated by the religion's dogma - punishment on the one hand, rewards on the other. Islam, like Christianity and most other theistic religions, alternates between fairly benevolent social oversight, and madness like Sharia law (or worse)

      Islam is the albatross around the neck of these countries, much as Christianity has been the albatross for America and England for most of their days.

      Religion cannot be eradicated except by force on the one hand, as long as tolerance for bullshit exists as an idolized social component; or until the combination of crippled critical thinking facilities, gullibility, and fear can be eradicated.

      It's not just that people are stupid - though many are - if that were all it was, we would already be free of the mental quagmire that is religion. Religion is a mechanism for control that has been tuned for century after century until it grips the unprepared mind with the ease of a healthy tiger taking down a diseased sheep. If credit must be given to Islam and/or Christianity for holding things together in some tough times, this is far outweighed by the incredible amount of damage they have caused, lives spent chasing mythology when further exposure of reality would have been of much greater use to the world, lives expended in various punishments for not following the dogma... crusades, fatwas, jihads, blood libel, brainwashing, theft, subjugation of women, rape, pillage, repression, "witch" burnings, financial parasitism, torture, scientific repression, murder of "heretics", censorship and blue laws, theft, sanction of excessive breeding, pogroms, inquisitions, vilification of sexuality and the outlawing of many consensual family arrangements... religion is poison at best, and at worst, it is viral, deadly, and ultimately destructive.

      Islam is not the problem

      No, Islam is the problem for this particular region. Islam can never be given the credit for the technical achievements of any people; instead, we can credit lighter versions of it for simply not getting in the way quite as much. Dogma that insists on mythological creatures who demand worship has never been much of a positive force for anything, albeit ameliorating problems it had been complicit in causing in the first place, and creating art dedicated to the deit(y|ies).

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Saudi Arabia will destroy itself by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Interesting

      GP has a point though. Christianity was historically repressive, but it was changed from within. The serious problem with Salafi (Wahhabi) is that it is a movement that is, fundamentally, against any and all change - the ultimate dogmaticists willing to fix everything in stone and keep it that way for eternity. Where they are popular, there is absolutely no hope for Islam to evolve into something more tolerable.

      Christianity has similar movements in it, but, gladly, they were never been able to catch up with the humanist revolution, and the more liberal Christian denominations were pretty much forced to accept it and play along. But there's no similar force in Islamic world today, and Salafism is going strong, spreading like a cancer.

  11. Re:That's all good and well... by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've travelled extensively in Morocco and Turkey (just returned from another journey through the former a week ago) and have got into innumerable discussions with the locals about religion. It is true that those countries are not Wahhabi. However, people who feel that Islam is a key part of their identity and who strive to practice it in their lives do agree with many of the problematic aspects of fundamentalist Islam. They do not believe that other religions or no religion at all should be permitted, and they want the state to silence opponents of Islam.

    Turkey especially is tilting towards a situation like in Egypt where a secular state is hanging on to life even as the population goes towards a Muslim Brotherhood-like ideology. My secular friends, representative the ever-decreasing portion of the population who think that Atatürk's attempts to diminish Islam's power were a good thing, are now looking to emigrate so they aren't here when the revolution goes down.

  12. Re:No big surprise here. by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Two caveats:

    1) It's not as simple as saying, "Commies are atheists, so all the bad stuff communists did was because of atheism." History shows that Soviet authorities used religion as necessary to keep power. There is also evidence of government officials baptizing their children in spite of their government's lip service to atheism.

    2) If Christians are not to be held accountable for the use of their beliefs to justify crimes against humanity (children's crusade, quoting the bible to justify slavery, a million others), why are atheists responsible for actions committed in the name of atheism?

  13. Re:temporary measure by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It will not benefit women in any way (except for those female politicians who use it to futher their careers).

    Great, lets hope the female politicians in Saudi Arabia use it to further their careers.