Egypt Blocks 21 Websites For 'Terrorism' And 'Fake News' (reuters.com)

Ahmed Aboulenein, reporting for Reuters: Egypt has banned 21 websites, including the main website of Qatar-based Al Jazeera television and prominent local independent news site Mada Masr, accusing them of supporting terrorism and spreading false news. The blockade is notable in scope and for being the first publicly recognized by the government. It was heavily criticized by journalists and rights groups. The state news agency announced it late on Wednesday. Individual websites had been inaccessible in the past but there was never any official admission. Reuters found the websites named by local media and were inaccessible. The move follows similar actions taken on Wednesday by Egypt's Gulf allies Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which blocked Al Jazeera and other websites after a dispute with Qatar. From a separate report: "This is not the typical Egyptian regime attitude," Lina Attalah, the editor-in-chief of Mada Masr told BuzzFeed News in an interview in Cairo. "We are used to facing troubles with the regime since we have always chosen to write the stories they don't like to hear. We are used to being arrested or have cases filed against us, but blocking us is a new thing." Mada Masr, since its founding in 2013, has regularly published critical stories of the regime in both English and Arabic.

Comments

Trump = cock sucker

[Anonymous Coward]

And pretty soon Trump will do the same thing since he has wet dreams of being a Castro or chavez-like authoritarian.

Re:Trump = cock sucker

[GLMDesigns]

Really? Projecting much.

Who is rioting over speech they disagree with? It isn't Trump supporters. (And by the way I didn't vote for him - but this hysteria on the left is simply too pathetic to ignore.)

As a side f**king note by making me defend the oompa lumpa so often from this BS you're making me (and others like me) more sympathetic to the oompa lumpa side.

Re:Trump = cock sucker

[Anonymous Coward]

O rly?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tr...

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/1...

http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...

I can find more if you want.

Re:Trump = cock sucker

[I'm New Around Here]

The word "rioting" is above your vocabulary level?

Re:Trump = cock sucker

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess CNN didn't tell you this, but democratic operatives - some paid directly by Hillary's campaign - were routinely sent to Trump rallies to provoke fights so the media could play up the 'ZOMG VIOLENT FASCISTS!!!' angle. Trump talked about it in the 3rd debate too, but maybe you were too overcome with hate to listen.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/activist-who-took-credit-for-violent-chicago-protests-was-on-hillarys-payroll/
http://www.dailywire.com/news/10018/undercover-videos-allegedly-expose-dnc-hillary-amanda-prestigiacomo
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-17/caught-tape-clinton-funded-democrat-operatives-inciting-anarchy-trump-rallies

Anyway, organized mobs of masked rioters torching Berkeley every other week somehow seems like a bigger deal than one random dude punching a protester in the face a year ago.

Re:Trump = cock sucker

[guises]

It isn't Trump supporters? Really? They were chanting “Russia is our friend" - it sure seems like they were Trump supporters.

Re:Trump = cock sucker

[jodido]

Hey genius--there are NO web sites blocked in Cuba.

Re:Trump = cock sucker

[GLMDesigns]

guess you simply don't get it when you're being mocked.

Re:Trump = cock sucker

[guises]

Who? You? Or the torch-wielding mob of white supremacists? I guess it doesn't matter, I didn't see any mocking from either of you. All I saw was a guy on slashdot who's blind to the world, and a torch-wielding mob of white supremacists.

Re:Trump = cock sucker

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia did fight Germany damn well in WW2 on our side at an extreme cost of life.

The Cold War and 1980s view was a result of the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned of at the end of his administration.

Re:Trump = cock sucker

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

More Salon articles? I'll pass.

Re:Trump = cock sucker

[guises]

For the most part, I think that Slashdot's user moderation system is the best available on the internet. Not that it doesn't have significant flaws, just that most of how it works seems to be well considered (and I haven't encountered anything better). That includes the fact that people can't both mod and post to the same story. This aspect means that even when mods are partisan and want to upmod posts that they agree with and downmod the others, they still have to read what other people have written. There's some minimum degree of exposure to other viewpoints that mods have to go through before they can take sides in an argument. It's not a lot, but it's something.

The fact that the parent above made a ridiculous claim, "Who is rioting over speech they disagree with? It isn't Trump supporters." and got modded up for it isn't surprising - you can mod up a comment that you agree with and stop there, no need to keep reading or dig any deeper. Maybe that's why they modded it up and maybe it isn't, but the fact that the parent is now sitting at +5 doesn't leave me confused. However, in response to that I posted a link to an article about a literal, no-hyperbole, torch wielding mob of white supremacists chanting pro-Trump slogans. The post above this one got modded -1, Troll. Somehow, someone read far enough down in this thread to see my comment, read what I had written, and completely ignore it. Sometimes I wish the mods could post to the same stories they moderate, because sometimes I want an explanation.

This censorship shouldn't surprise anybody

[Tablizer]

3rd world countries being 3rd world countries.

Re:This censorship shouldn't surprise anybody

[Anonymous Coward]

It's coming to the first world too. Trump has an authoritarian crush on this guy and Erdogan.

Re:This censorship shouldn't surprise anybody

[Anonymous Coward]

No he doesn't. It's not his job to tell others how to run their own countries. As US President it is his job to cultivate bilateral relationships that benefit the US. Right now it's evidently against the law for the US President or any of his deputies to even talk to a foreigner. In the future the Trump administration will be remembered positively because when compared to the press and those spending every waking moment of their day trying to un-elect him he will shine like a martyr.

Re: This censorship shouldn't surprise anybody

[Anonymous Coward]

A martyr you say? Let's hope it's soon.

Re:This censorship shouldn't surprise anybody

[Desler]

It's not his job to tell others how to run their own countries.

Ronald Reagan would have clearly disagreed.

Re:This censorship shouldn't surprise anybody

[Anonymous Coward]

No he doesn't.

Maybe in opposite land where you've planted your head in the sand.

It's not his job to tell others how to run their own countries.

That's strange since most presidents from WWII on saw it as part of their job to promote freedom around the world. But, hey, who cares that the Saud family bankrolls terrorists and runs a brutally-oppressive, autocratic regime? What's more important is the arms deals, right?

Re:This censorship shouldn't surprise anybody

[zlives]

yes but RR was a traitor to the Rumple states of Trumpia

Re:Trump = [censored]

[Tablizer]

So far Checks and Balances are working fairly well to keep him in check. Chalk one up to the forefathers' design. Viva C&B!

Re:Trump = [censored]

[Anonymous Coward]

Until he gets to stack the judiciary because the Republican senators are changing rules again that they used to claim were sacred when they were the minority party.

Re:Trump = [censored]

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow you're dumb. The rules change you're referring to is part of the rules. Designed specifically for when a vote is being blocked for no other reason than to block it. Doesn't get used often...twice now I believe, but it is part of the rules. I know it's hard to understand reality, but if you take your head out of the liberal media's ass for a few seconds, you might start to see it.

Re:Trump = [censored]

[Tablizer]

He can only stuff so many judges in 4 years. I sure hope it's only 4.

Oh please

[Anonymous Coward]

Are any of the whiners actually aware of the ethnic conflict behind sunnis and shiites? In this particular instance, I have no doubt that Al Jazeera *is* advocating terrorism and distributing fake news. This is middle-east media folks, not a Western organization.

Re:Oh please

[smooth wombat]

Are any of the whiners actually aware of the ethnic conflict behind sunnis and shiites?

No, because Sunni and Shiite aren't ethnicities. They're religious entities.

But keep up the trolling. We have plenty of Russian trolls on here, might as well get some Middle Eastern ones as well.

Re:Oh please

[unixisc]

Shi'ites & Sunnites happen to be an issue in Iraq, as well as Syria & Yemen. It's hardly an issue in Egypt, which has been solidly Sunni since the end of the Fatimid dynasty and the advent of Saladin.

However, al Jazeera does have the track record of being al Qaeda TV, back from the 9/11 days when they used to broadcast those Osama tapes. So Cairo ain't far off in their assessment. While most of the Arab media is obedient towards their own rulers, like the al Thanis in Qatar, they happily work to undermine any regime they dislike. In this case, since they had sympathies w/ the Muslim Brotherhood (the parent organization of al Qaeda), they decided to be to the al Sisi regime what CNN, NBC, ABC & CBS have been to Trump. Except that since they are doing it in support of an actual terrorist organization - the Muslim Brotherhood - they walked right into the trap of the Cairo regime and made themselves liable for such charges. As for fake news, that's par for the course for Middle Eastern news agencies - highlight (to the point of inventing) good things about those they support, and slam the bad things about those they loathe.

I'm no fan of al Sisi, but I'm certainly w/ him on this one.

Re: Oh please

[bestweasel]

"Muslim Brotherhood (the parent organization of al Qaeda)"

That's not true at all. The Muslim Brotherhood were democratically elected in Egypt and removed by a military coup.

Re: Oh please

[unixisc]

One is a non-sequitur to the other. Yeah, they were democratically elected and then removed. That doesn't disprove the fact that they are the parent organization of al Qaeda, Hamas and a number of other worldwide Jihadist organizations.

Also, since that coup, there has been another democratic election in Egypt that elected al Sisi. So his regime is very much legitimate, unlike Mubarak's. Yeah, the Muslim Brotherhood is still very popular, and 74% of Egyptians want Shariah to be the law of their land, but that doesn't imply that it's not a terrorist organization.

Re: Oh please

[bestweasel]

They were two separate statements.

There you go again with your unfounded allegations "the fact that they are the parent organization of al Qaeda, Hamas and a number of other worldwide Jihadist organizations". Cite some sources please. I see what you're getting at but we're talking about the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood here.

That would be the democratic election where the opposition were either, dead, fled, banned, in hiding or being tortured in Egypt's prisons and where al-Sisi won 97% of the vote. Nothing says democratic free and fair elections more than 'winning' 97% of the vote. That brings Egypt up to the same democratic standards as Russia or Syria but it's not exactly Norway is it?

Re:Oh please

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no fan of al Sisi, but I'm certainly w/ him on this one.

On what? On censorship? Fuck that! Censorship is always evil. The technology for circumventing it is urgently needed to spread far and wide as quickly as possible. Only then can we defeat the tyrants.

Re: Oh please

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't be parent organisation of Hamas since Hamas uses violence which is against the character of Muslim Brotherhood that works through non-violent means such as political, social welfare and so on. AlQaida was created long after Muslim Brotherhood and in a region where they weren't even active. Calling Muslim Brotherhood the parent for AlQaida and Hamas is as asinine as calling the pope parent of SLA or any other christian terrorist group because they apparently used the same sources (bible) or motivation (christian rule) but extremely different interpretations.

Re:Oh please

[Anonymous Coward]

Al-sissy (yep, that's how his name is pronounced, sissy) is an imbecile. This is going to backlash right in his face as people are going to become very curious and find ways to get to the "forbidden" information he is so afraid of. Human nature.

Re: Oh please

[unixisc]

Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is the central Muslim Brotherhood of all. Ayman al Zawahiri was from this group, before he was spun off to al Qaeda. Hamas too is a spin-off.

Yeah, I agree w/ you that Morsi was democratically elected, but so was al-Sisi. And no, he didn't win 97% of the vote. The Egyptian people were largely disgusted by the high handedness of the Morsi regime, which is why they voted against them at the first possible opportunity. They'll get the chance to vote him out again in a few years, since he's stated that he won't run for a third term.

Re: Oh please

[unixisc]

Muslim Brotherhood is as violent as Hamas or al Qaeda, which is why they were banned in just about every country, be it Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Saudi Arabia. Ayman al Zawahiri was originally from that group, and dedicated himself to putting Sayyed Qutb's vision into action. Sayyed Qutb being the founder of that organization. It's not about both using the Quran: it's about both being derivative organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood

Fake news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is one of those sites "whitehouse.gov"? :P

First on the list...

[bobbied]

Slashdot of course... All the Fake News for nerds unfit to print so we put it on a website...

Come on.. It's a joke. I swear!

Flawed list.

[Anonymous Coward]

They forgot to ban islam.com

Ukraine also blocked Russian Websites and Software

[Anonymous Coward]

No one mentioned here that Ukraine also blocked Russian Social Networks Websites for "hybrid war". "Poroshenko said the new restrictions were necessary to further protect Ukraine from Kremlin hybrid warfare, including disinformation campaigns, propaganda and military attacks."
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-ukraine-website-ban-20170518-story.html

It's her turn (to lose)

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress could increase the size of the Supreme Court if they wished to, but it's a bad precedent.

Also, it's only 4 years if the Democratic party doesn't nominate Chelsea Clinton instead of someone who might get votes.

Re:It's her turn (to lose)

[Anonymous Coward]

> Also, it's only 4 years

It's probably 8. The Democrats only show the barest signs of noticing the hole they have dug themselves in, and the ludicrous elements aren't going to unroot without a fight. They'll lose that fight, of course, but it probably won't be promptly. While the Democrats would be fools to actually signal who they might want as a 2020 candidate (at this point last cycle, Hillary was on record as DEFINITELY not running), there's no reason yet to assume that they'll be able to take their eyes away from their pre-chosen weirdos like Chelsea or Michelle or whatever.

Even if they do manage- not impossible, but I'll be impressed- to choose an actually competent candidate- they'll still have to beat Trump. Last time, Trump won despite having 11 rape accusers who showed up in October (we'll maybe see them again in October of 2020, or even new ones!), a tape where he both confesses to "moving on her like a bitch" and bragging about how you can "grab'em by the pussy", as well as unanimous endorsements against him from the entire mainstream press and almost every newspaper in the USA, as well as everyone in Hollywood and Silicon Valley decrying him. He will never have that weight able to be brought against him again: four years of trying to frame him as a Russian agent has a low chance of success. Trump is fundamentally amazing at running for office: I don't think I'll ever witness someone with similar skill. Whatever Democrat wants to challenge that has a massively uphill battle to fight.

So possible, but really unlikely. 8 is the safe bet.

Re:It's her turn (to lose)

[Anonymous Coward]

>Trump is fundamentally amazing at running for office: I don't think I'll ever witness someone with similar skill.

I'm not sure if it's "skill" as much as "seeing the opening and having the balls to go for it"; he's honestly kinda terrible at politics (which is completely distinct from being terrible at governing, btw). Thing is, politicians had been playing the game of winning elections sub-optimally all along, and even a terrible, flawed politician could run right over all of them with the right strategy and attitude.

We'll see if it works again, but considering the media is actively flushing its own credibility down the toilet and dems look like they're going to nominate someone like Katy Perry or fucking The Rock or some intersectionalist wet dream who'll campaign on sending all fucking white males to Tolerance Gulags, so I'd say his odds are pretty good.

Re:It's her turn (to lose)

[Tablizer]

I will partly agree and give him credit for at least actively acknowledging itches that BOTH parties failed to scratch: leaky borders* and lopsided trade.

That doesn't necessarily mean he can or will do anything about them. Talk only takes you so far. I believe his inattention to detail will eventually politically sink him, but we'll see.

As far as H being an allegedly bad candidate, remember that T also thumped each and every GOP candidate. H was politically lack-luster, but mostly competent to run the ship, unlike T.

I worked under an executive like him once, and BS and exaggeration eventually runs out of steam when neglect of too many details makes the ship too leaky to stay afloat. Details matter in aggregate.

* GOP gives borders lip service, but biz bribes them to fake it and look the other way so that biz has cheap labor. They punted several times when they had the chance, including a Dem bill to fund more border guards.

Re:Trump = [censored]

[Anonymous Coward]

How am I dumb? The rules they want changed were used by the GOP to block dozens of Obama appointees. Strange how now they will be removed once it negatively impacts them. But, hey, keep cheering on your team instead of realizing how these rule changes are going to affect your side when the GOP goes back to the minority party.

Extremists = Media Manipulation

[AnalogDiehard]

I support Egypt's move because the muslim extremists have a long history of manipulating the media to lend themselves a false legitimacy. When you tell enough lies, people no longer listen to you. These groups cry "censorship" yet do everything to silence dissenting voices who reveal their deception.

More countries should do the same because these groups simply are no longer trustworthy and are at best a brutal and savage culture.

Re:Extremists = Media Manipulation

[Tablizer]

{sarcasm} It's a good thing other religions are honest and unbiased. {/sarcasm}

Re:Extremists = Media Manipulation

[rtb61]

That is old world media bullshit from the last millennium, the previous centuries media state. I give you http://www.internetlivestats.c... the internet. I billion web sites, thanks to weird ideas by backwards Americans, 1 billion in this case not being a million million but only a thousand million. Looking at one per second it would take, well, a billion seconds just to click on them, let alone read every page.

Reality is people only go where they want to go. No surprise taking over of people's minds and turning them into terrorists, they go to the worst sites because they already have an interest or they are just bored, either way, no new terrorist created, the terrorist is already there just seeking confirmation of their own crazy assed bullshit.

There is a whole lot of whining going on about it in main stream media because, instead of being in control and being able to extort billions for access to the public mind space, they are just another web site, just another bunch of bloggers and when subject to more competition, well, actually, much, much, much (boy, I could type that a whole bunch of times and still not cover it) competition and they are starting to look like real corrupt bogus shite selling corporate propaganda lies as the truth, full of wank psuedo celebrities, utter narcissists, full of delusional fucking stars and bullshit musical geniuses, oh my.

The big complaint in reality, old main stream media channels are no longer able to dominate and extort billions for access to the public mind space, neither are governments. Suck it up fellas, pandoras box is open and the general public is accessible to the general public and they are finding out, they do not like what the fuck is going on with the insanely rich and and greedy, as well as their corrupt political buddies.

Reality is the more the internet exposes the better off we are and not the other way around.

Re:Trump = [censored]

[Anonymous Coward]

If Harry Reid had balls he would've done it himself. You're only butthurt because Republicans are better at capitalizing on their victories and utilizing the tools available to them than your side was.

Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess Ajit Pai would be supportive of this.

Re:Trump = [censored]

[reboot246]

You can thank Democrat Harry Reid for the rule change (aka the nuclear option). He did it first and now the Republicans are just doing it back in a tit-for-tat.

How can anyone believe you when you can't even get your facts straight?

Re:Trump = [censored]

[Stickasylum]

Circumstances are very different.

Silencing critics

[Zemran]

So basically, anyone who criticises the new regime is now blocked.

Re:Trump = [censored]

[Boronx]

I thought the constitution would keep the minority party out of power, but that didn't happen.

*So far* Trump has been mostly checked.

Hold on

[goose-incarnated]

Isn't this the outcome the US hard-left movement was asking for - banning fake-news?

Re:Trump = [censored]

[TangoMargarine]

“This is the latest escalation in the left’s never-ending judicial war, the most audacious yet,” Mr. McConnell said, after describing Democratic opposition in the past to Judge Robert H. Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas. “And it cannot and it will not stand. There cannot be two sets of standards: one for the nominees of the Democratic president and another for the nominees of Republican presidents.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

The hypocrisy is strong with these jerks.

tell the difference!

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick! tell the difference between a "legitimately concerned about rights" activist and a terrorist who doesn't want his recruitment channel shut down!

Or between the Activist and the Salesman.

you can't.

the loud voice crying about censorship or control sounds exactly like the person who's finding his profit or criminal stream a lot harder to operate.