Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pakistan Lifts 3-Year Ban On YouTube, Allows Local Version (go.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the here's-your-version dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Pakistan has allowed access to a localized version of the video sharing website YouTube on company assurances that country-specific filters would be added to remove objectionable content. ABC reports: " Pakistan banned YouTube under a court order in September 2012 for carrying a controversial made-in-America movie trailer that sparked deadly protests across the Muslim world. The movie 'Innocence of Muslims' was considered blasphemous and derogatory to Islam for its portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad. Some of the most intense protests erupted in Pakistan, where the role of Islam in society is sacrosanct and anti-American sentiment runs high. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority spokesman Khurram Mehran says all the instructions were given and the website was accessible across the country on Monday."

19 of 36 comments (clear)

  1. Your local recruiter thanks you! by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    If there was any doubt about the recruitment advantages of the internet,

    the willingness of the Pakastanis to accept some inevitable blasphemy against their beloved Mohammed should tip you into the correct direction.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Your local recruiter thanks you! by Halo1 · · Score: 1

      The average Pakistani, and even the Pakistani government, has very little power to accept or reject anything. Virtually all power lies with the Pakistani army and its intelligence service, thanks to US "aid". This aid is moreover not entirely voluntarily any more today, as its main purpose now appears to be to keep a completely messed up corrupt bunch of people in power, in an attempt to reduce the risk of a completely messed up bunch of other people that may be allied with Al Qaeda or the Taliban from taking over that power (which includes the keys to nuclear weapons).

      I bet the anti-Western/foreigner feelings, which often include vehemently defending what is considered to be one's own primary/distinguishing values/traditions, are to a large extent inspired by the fact that they feel it is this same West that keeps their country's leadership hijacked. I have a Pakistani colleague at the university, and he recently told me their civil government regularly has to ask the military for funding rather than the other way around, simply because almost all direct monetary US aid ends up with the military. It's insane.

      --
      Donate free food here
    2. Re:Your local recruiter thanks you! by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      It's not so insane when you consider that they have nuclear weapons and are right next to (and hostile towards) another country that has them too. The U.S. will do almost ANYTHING to keep the peace in that region. And they know that it's better to have a corrupt-as-hell extortionist scumbag military in charge, and at least maintaining a status quo peace, than to take their chances with an Arab-Spring type popular radical government that might easily stumble into a regional nuclear war and possibly set off WWIII.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    3. Re:Your local recruiter thanks you! by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      And they know that it's better to have a corrupt-as-hell extortionist scumbag military in charge, and at least maintaining a status quo peace, than to take their chances with an Arab-Spring type popular radical government that might easily stumble into a regional nuclear war and possibly set off WWIII.

      Learning are they? Slowly, but yes... who would've thought that encouraging the overthrow of a sovereign nation might backfire?

      It's difficult to argue that Iraq (and Syria) wouldn't be better off today with Saddam's Sunnis still in power.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:Your local recruiter thanks you! by Halo1 · · Score: 1

      It's not so insane when you consider that they have nuclear weapons and are right next to (and hostile towards) another country that has them too. The U.S. will do almost ANYTHING to keep the peace in that region.

      I guess you mean that they will do anything to avoid war between India and Pakistan. Peace is not a term I would use for Pakistan.

      And they know that it's better to have a corrupt-as-hell extortionist scumbag military in charge, and at least maintaining a status quo peace, than to take their chances with an Arab-Spring type popular radical government that might easily stumble into a regional nuclear war and possibly set off WWIII.

      That's pretty much exactly what I said in my sentence that started with "This aid is moreover not entirely voluntarily any more today ...".

      That doesn't make it any less insane or counter-productive though. It's insane to think that this status quo can be be maintained. It's insane to think that this prevents nuclear proliferation, because as the article mentions, this has already happened in the past from Pakistan and there are no indications that it won't happen again in the future. It's insane to think that by supporting a dictatorship, you will be able to somehow suddenly get lots of friendly people afterwards (as indeed the Arab Spring demonstrated -- note that the Arab Spring did not start with or include Western boycotts against the dictators -- except when some dictators' positions became untenable). It's insane to think that this will not result in more IS-like insanity in the future (or to think that IS-like madmen won't be able to get their hands on dirty bombs or nuke materials in other ways).

      I fully agree that there is no easy and quick solution for the situation (which, as the article notes, was actually for a large part created by the US itself, just like in Afghanistan). Just pouring more money into a corrupt dictatorship will however later inevitably result in throwing the hands in the air and more short-sighted people yelling of "look at all those barbaric Muslims that hate our guts for no reason other than that they follow a retarded religion and are incapable of setting up properly functioning governments, and all of that in spite of the billions in aid that we gave them"... As I tried to express in my original message, my point was mainly related to that: these violent reactions to YouTube etc have probably little or nothing to do with fact that they are Muslim. It's just one of the very few ways they have to express their anger such that the military tolerates it (since it's directed against an external entity).

      --
      Donate free food here
    5. Re:Your local recruiter thanks you! by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      And they know that it's better to have a corrupt-as-hell extortionist scumbag military in charge, and at least maintaining a status quo peace, than to take their chances with an Arab-Spring type popular radical government that might easily stumble into a regional nuclear war and possibly set off WWIII.

      Learning are they? Slowly, but yes... who would've thought that encouraging the overthrow of a sovereign nation might backfire?

      It's difficult to argue that Iraq (and Syria) wouldn't be better off today with Saddam's Sunnis still in power.

      Ignorant knee jerk stupidity.

      Learning? Bush entrenched that standard with his cowboy speech declaring you are either with us or against us. Before troops where deployed to Afghanistan let alone Iraq. The express purpose was to declare to Musharaf that America was no longer willing to tolerate Pakistan playing nice and cozy with Islamic jihadists like Al Qaida and the Taliban. Of course, in diplomacy it wasn't advisable for the president of the United States to publicly call out the leader of Pakistan for essentially supporting and partnering with such guys, hence his public speech that didn't name any names. Be certain that in back channels though the message was made very clear that America was going to be invading Afghanistan, and the question of whether that included Pakistan as well rested with whether Pakistan opted to change sides and help out or not.

      That bit though is more understandable to miss. If you don't follow Pakistani news and recent events mainstream media has been more than happy to leave out the underlying reality. Even as Bin Laden is invariably found living happily a mile away from the Officer Training Academy Musharaf himself graduated from...

      It's difficult to argue that Iraq (and Syria) wouldn't be better off today with Saddam's Sunnis still in power.

      Again, I'm guessing before the invasion you couldn't find Iraq on a map and more over, since then have refused to bother studying Iraqi history in any, shape or form prior to 2001.

      Why don't we take a quick gander at the track record of Saddam's Sunni's while in power.
      The Iran-Iraq war, more than a million dead and seeing the most extensive deployment of chemical weapons since they were banned after WW1.
      The Al-Anfal campaign, the genocide of 100,000 Iraqi Kurds including again more chemical weapon attacks. The cake goes to Saddam's brother though for incorporating the execution of all breeding age Kurdish men and systematic rape of women with the intended goal of impregnating them with half-arab children. The goal being to very extensive breed the Kurdish people out of existence.
      The 1991 extermination of Shia Iraqi's leaving an estimated quarter million dead.

      And those are just the absolutely overt crimes of the regime. The daily systemic repression and suppression of any dissent with similarly brutal murder and collective punishment was the norm under Saddam's Sunni's.

      Hell, even Saddam's first day 'on the job' is good indicator. Having killed off all opposition parties and consolidated his own parties control of Iraq, Saddam held a grand meeting of his own party. He then brought an obviously and visibily tortured man and gravely announced that there were traitors in the room with them. The tortured man then began naming the names of 'consipirators' and one by one they were dragged up to the front as the room began to panic pledge their allegiance and loyalty to Saddam, surely they were not a traitor. Once Saddam had his chosen people brought up, he turned to the remaining members and did one better than the Stalin playbook he'd been running from so far. He declared that outside there were guns and the traitors were to be executed. The people to execute them would be everyone in the audience not already chosen as a 'traitor', thus sealing them all to his crime.

      Saddam was a monster rarely rivalled in history and a statement like It's difficult to argue that Iraq (and Syria) wouldn't be better off today with Saddam's Sunnis still in power. is so ignorant it boggles the mind.

    6. Re:Your local recruiter thanks you! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      You do NOT need anti Mohammed videos to get members of the religion of perpetual outrage outraged. They - the observant ones at least - get enough of that from Quran and Sunnah

      While the movie in question did highlight controversial aspects of Mohammed - such as his pedophilia, it was badly made, and even critics of Islam found it underwhelming. It was however NOT the reason Muslims got infuriated: they get infuriated w/ the minimal of efforts, which is what happened here, as well as in Benghazi

    7. Re:Your local recruiter thanks you! by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      You seem very knowledgeable about the region.

      You should be confident in the value of your ability to bring new information and viewpoints to the discussion.

      Your opinions are legitimate enough to stand on their own. The snideness just makes you look bad.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  2. Cant wait to see ... by drewsup · · Score: 1

    Mohamed's funniest cat videos!

    1. Re:Cant wait to see ... by rhazz · · Score: 1

      posting to undo moderation.

  3. "Localized" by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

    It's like regular YouTube, only the cute female puppies and kittens are covered with burkas.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  4. Nyan cat by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Now they can watch the 100 hour version of Nyan cat!

  5. Re:Seems like it was an enforced boycott by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    Followers of Abrahamic monotheisms(with the exception of the utterly pathetic 'prosperity gospel' types) tend to get pretty jumpy when dealing with agents of Mammon.

    Mostly because they come bearing cool toys and are hell to compete against for marketshare.

  6. only cats videos by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    LOL cats only!

    1. Re:only cats videos by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      The Internet is a series of tubes, and the tubes are full of cats.

  7. Perpetuating the lie by entropy01 · · Score: 1

    "...that sparked deadly protests across the Muslim world."
    Bullshit. Those who repeat this lie are the diehard Clinton supporters who do not possess a shred of intellectual honesty.

    1. Re:Perpetuating the lie by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      "...that sparked deadly protests across the Muslim world."
      Bullshit. Those who repeat this lie are the diehard Clinton supporters who do not possess a shred of intellectual honesty.

      I never knew that Al Jazeera was among the diehard Clinton supporters.

      From the Arab backed media outlets timeline linked above, dozens of people died and hundreds more were injured in the protests. That is the definition of deadly protests so I've not a clue were you are coming from save complete and total ignorance.

  8. Saddam and his alternatives by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Everything you've described is something that was an internal affair of Iraq/Arab world/Islamic empire. Monstrous no doubt, but no reason for the US to intervene.

    The ouster of Saddam was justified on the grounds that he was supporting terrorism - Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad just days before the invasion. However, once his regime was overthrown, the only role of the US should have been to look for WMDs, and once they didn't find them, return home. Trying to create a democracy in a culture openly hostile to it - which is what Islam is - made no sense. In the process, the US created a puppet state of Iran, which the latter got for free. If people are railing against Obama today for lifting the sanctions and providing $150B to Iran, Bush handed to them on a platter a government that achieved what they always wanted - the creation of a Shia crescent from Teheran to Beirut, via Baghdad and Dimashq.

    Instead, the US should have left it and let the Iranians, the Saudis and the Syrians - both Assad and his Sunni enemies - slug it out in Iraq. Maybe secure Kurdistan and Christian areas of the country, but leave it open to the rest of the country. That way, there would have been a deadlock b/w ISIS and Iran, and we wouldn't have seen it spread all over Europe and the world

    1. Re:Saddam and his alternatives by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      The ouster of Saddam was justified on the grounds that he was supporting terrorism
      I don't feel bound to the Bush admins pathetic efforts at defending its actions in Iraq. I even vehemently agree with how grossly ignorant the push for the invasion and ham fisted bungling of the occupation afterwards were.
      Saddam had committed genocide on multiple occasions, all signatories to convention on genocide were obligated to act to prevent that, or failing that to punish those responsible. Grounds enough right there for removal of Saddam's regime.
      Saddam had violated the NPT, grounds enough to be removed long ago but nobody but Israel did anything by blowing up the reactor the French sold him.
      Saddam had repeatedly used chemical weapons on his neighbours and his own people, grounds enough for his removal.
      Saddam had repeatedly invaded and taken over his neighbouring countries, grounds enough for his removal.

      That the world had failed to have the will to do so doesn't change things. That Bush decided not lay these as the heart of his justifications doesn't suddenly change any of these facts, it just makes Bush case weak and easy to poke full of holes. My reasons for declaring Saddams removal was a good thing depends not one whit on how well or poorly Bush made or failed to make his case.

      I have to insist that the isolationist argument of it is ok to ignore genocide and other gross abuses of human rights because it is far away is morally bankrupt. If Iraq had been split into Kurdish, Shia and Sunni partitions most this could probably have been mitigated, but Bush sent in an administrator that knew nothing about Iraq a full week to get himself up to speed before he was on the ground. Unsurprisingly he did a terrifically bad job. Even with that, a post Saddam mostly controlled by Iran and pseudo independent Kurdish people is still a big improvement. It still nowhere near as good as we could have hoped, but bumbling buffoonery can only improve so much over a brutal repressive dictator. An improvement though is absolutely still what it is. The 60% of Iraqis that are Shia sleep better now than before, the 20% that are Kurdish sleep better. If the remaining 20% of Sunni Iraqis are now still living in chaos and facing horrors like ISIL that is still a step from having 80% of Iraqis terrorized versus 20%. Still very much a bad situation, but IMHO less bad than the Saddam era.