Slashdot Mirror
Egypt's New Law Targets Social Media, Journalists For 'Fake News' (reuters.com)
Egypt's parliament passed a law Monday giving the state powers to block social media users and penalize journalists for publishing fake news. "Under the law passed on Monday social media accounts and blogs with more than 5,000 followers on sites such as Twitter and Facebook will be treated as media outlets, which makes them subject to prosecution for publishing false news or incitement to break the law," reports Reuters. From the report: The Supreme Council for the Administration of the Media, headed by an official appointed by President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, will supervise the law and take action against violations. The bill prohibits the establishment of websites without obtaining a license from the Supreme Council and allows it to suspend or block existing websites, or impose fines on editors. The law, which takes effect after it is ratified by Sisi, also states that journalists can only film in places that are not prohibited, but does not explain further. Supporters of Sisi say the law is intended to safeguard freedom of expression and it was approved after consultations with judicial experts and journalists. But critics say it will give legal basis to measures the government has been taking to crack down on dissent and extend its control over social media.
Anybody else expecting this to be used to punish people who raise facts that the 'dear leader' (of whatever country) finds distasteful?
First we get powerful people using fake news to bend the minds of voters into idiot sheep
Next we get powerful people using the fear of fake news to charge and persecute people who disagree with them, even if they do so using facts
Does anybody else feel that we are moving backwards in time and will soon be serfs to our lairds?
Anybody else expecting this to be used to punish people who raise facts that the 'dear leader' (of whatever country) finds distasteful?
First we get powerful people using fake news to bend the minds of voters into idiot sheep
Next we get powerful people using the fear of fake news to charge and persecute people who disagree with them, even if they do so using facts
Does anybody else feel that we are moving backwards in time and will soon be serfs to our lairds?
We do the same thing in the US, except it isn't the government doing it. Facebook, Google, Twitter - everyone wants to have their hand in what is right and proper for the general public to view, they all have political bias, and have wildly publicized failures.
I should point out that the InfoWars article on spirit cooking turned out to be correct in all its particulars - that specific article is not in any way fake news.
That's a pretty clear philosophical point to make: do you censor sites or individual articles? At what point does a site get censored as being predominately fake news?
That specific article was politically inconvenient for the anointed hero of many people, so in that particular instance do you think any sort of "social consensus" could be reached as to whether or not it's fake?
ABC news reported that Paul Manafort pleaded guilty to 5 charges of manslaughter, which is pretty specific, damaging, and completely fake. Is ABC news a "fake news" site?
Youtube articles on the subject of guns have now been marginalized removed from ad income and blocked... on what appears to be a social whim: outrage whipped up by some teenagers in a highly-publicizes shooting. Those articles used to be, and still are, completely legal and not offensively violent or lewd. Is the "fake news" system being used to force a political agenda?
Everyone seems to find it their duty to correct our invalid thinking and gently guide us to the correct groupthink.
It's not just the middle east that's moving to restrict speech, it's all the big players.
(For reference, dig into today's controversy about [Papa John's founder] John Schnatter using the "n-word" on a corporate phone call. It's readily apparent form the evidence what really happened - see if you think there's any real controversy there. Much of what's being reported is completely fake.)
With its freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom after speech. The entire occupation gets fully protected from any gov.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
ink and paper are gone
the underground is well lit within the digital world
"His name was James Damore."
A number of things went wrong.
First and foremost, after ousting the dictator by popular mobilization, the rebel leaders allowed the army to take power in a year long interim period and send the masses home. This broke the power of the masses. Furthermore, it allowed the deep state to use its propaganda to demobilize the hearts and minds of the population. Contrast this to Tunisia where the elections were held shortly after the uprising.
One of the arguments for the interim period was partly to set the stage with some rules to govern the elections, but also for opposition parties to get ready. Everybody knew that the Muslim Brotherhood would win if the elections were held immediately (and they were likely right). So, the army got the rest of the opposition leaders to agree to an interim period by pointing out that they would not win an immediate election.
As you remember, Mohammad Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood won the election, fair and square. When he won, he started to gather power in his hands and in the hands of his supporters. Some say it was because he was an autocrat trying to become a dictator. And they may have been right. However, looking back at modern Egyptian history (the revolution of 1952), he is likely to have anticipated that the army was gearing up for a coup and he was simply trying to get ready. Note that the two opinions do not conflict: He could have been both trying to become a dictator and anticipated a coup at the same time.
His power grab did serve to give the army both an excuse (that he was grabbing a lot of power) and got them the support of most of the opposition. Thus, the army could go in, take power and start a nasty campaign of repression against the Muslim Brotherhood with the support of the opposition. After having finished off the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Sisi could then turn on the remaining opposition as well as the ringleaders in the uprising against Mubarak, effectively finishing the counter revolution.
What went wrong? Comparing Egypt with Tunisia should show it clearly: Whenever the masses has ousted a nasty dictator, the rulers are on the defensive. That is when you apply pressure to get changes. If you demobilize the masses, you demobilize the force that put the rulers on the defensive and the major source of revolutionary power. This gives the rulers the time to regroup and start all sorts of campaigns to make it hard to remobilize the masses, setting the stage for counter revolution. As we saw in Egypt.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head