YouTube Restricts Access To Anti-Islam Movie Trailer In Egypt And Libya

from the head-meet-sand dept

Unless you have been living under a rock the past few days, you're likely aware of the violent protests in Egypt and Libya on American missions which have resulted in several deaths, including that of US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. The apparent flashpoint for these protests was a movie trailer on YouTube for what is by all accounts a horribly offensive and insensitve film about Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. We've seen similar stories in the past over website content, but this incident takes things to a whole new level.

Today we learned that YouTube has taken the step of restricting access to the video in question in both Egypt and Libya. When asked about it, YouTube responded with the following statement.

"We work hard to create a community everyone can enjoy and which also enables people to express different opinions," YouTube said by e-mail. "This can be a challenge because what's OK in one country can be offensive elsewhere.

This video -- which is widely available on the Web -- is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube. However, given the very difficult situation in Libya and Egypt we have temporarily restricted access in both countries."

While I understand why YouTube is doing this, I think it's misguided for two reasons. First, stupid and hateful as the video in question reportedly is, blocking access (potentially seen as taking it down in Egypt and Libya) can be interpreted to mean that the fault for what's happening is in part with the video itself. It isn't. The guilt for this violence is not in some stupid video. It isn't even in the massive protests in the Muslim world against the video (though I'd probably suggest they learn about the Streisand Effect). The guilt for the violence and death belongs on the thugs and murderers who committed it. End of story. This is especially true when the company has acknowledged itself that the video does not violate YouTube's terms of service.

The EFF agrees.

It is easy to understand why YouTube might feel compelled to act in response to the rioting over this video, especially after three U.S. embassy employees were killed in the Libyan city of Benghazi, but the blame for the violence lies not with the video, but with the perpetrators. Once YouTube has made the decision to pro-actively censor its content, they start down a slippery slope that ends in YouTube Knows Best moral policing of every video on their site. It is disappointing to see YouTube turn its back on policies that have allowed it to become a such a strong platform for freedom of expression. We hope that this new-found enthusiasm for pro-active censorship is a temporary aberration rather than a sign of things to come.

The second reason is that YouTube's move is almost certainly equal parts too late and ineffectual. As the company's statement itself noted, this video is and already was all over the internet. Censoring the video now is a bit like covering your ears and eyes as your house burns around you. The problem of religious intolerance and violent reactions to it is going to exist whether you acknowledge it's there or not. Nobody is served by trying to pretend the hateful attitudes in the video don't exist. And it isn't like the protests have ceased now that YouTube has restricted access in those countries. The cat is already out of the bag. All you've done now is open the door to blocking videos based on people deciding to be offended with little to no effect on the violence at hand. So what was the point?

I'll be clear again: every description of the video in question suggests that it is cartoonishly crafted and inflammatory bigotry. But it doesn't violate YouTube's TOS, it is speech, and taking it down was a poor decision made in fear. That isn't the way I expect a company like YouTube to behave.

Filed Under: egypt, free speech, islam, libya, video, violence
Companies: google, youtube

Free For The First Time In Decades, Libyan Media Struggles To Define Itself

from the when-the-shackles-come-off dept

The Arab Spring sparked plenty of discussion about the roles that social media, mobile devices and other technologies can play in toppling oppressive regimes. But there's another aspect to events in the Middle East that should prove enlightening to those interested in the role of media: what happens afterwards? In Libya, there is suddenly press freedom after 42 years of censorship and government control, and it has led to the appearance of countless new newspapers, websites and TV and radio stations, all working to build a journalistic landscape essentially from scratch. As an article in Global Post reveals, the result is understandably somewhat chaotic:

"We are yet to see even semi-professional reporting," said Jamal Dajani, the regional vice president for Internews, an international media development organization." TV reports are dominated by unfocused footage and "amateur standups," he says. "There are no standards on presentation. Long reportage and news packages are jumbled together like a mixed cocktail."

I find that comment interesting because it echoes some of the criticisms leveled at blogs and online media in the western world. The key difference is that while amateur journalism here has been able to draw upon the resources of traditional media as it develops, in Libya there is no such support structure:

A year ago, Libya's entire newspaper industry consisted of only six government-run papers. Television and radio were completely state-owned and international news was heavily censored. Dajani described it as a "one-man media" operation designed to promote former leader Muammar Gaddafi and his family.

[...]

The former regime's repression left little chance for most journalists to develop core skills. Even those considered professionals did not have the chance to work in any real capacity as journalists.

As Dajani put it, trained Libyan reporters have been "paralyzed" for the past four decades and in the eyes of the new generation they now have "zero credibility." The new landscape has emerged largely through the efforts of unskilled but enthusiastic amateurs.

It's too early to know what will emerge from the post-revolution chaos, but the big question is whether the press will establish its independence—which isn't guaranteed just because the government was toppled:

While government censorship has been almost nonexistent under the new system, Internews has expressed concern about "self censorship" and "public pressure" to omit information that may be deemed "against the revolution."

[...]

At the outset of the revolution, free and fair media was a major demand. Unsurprisingly, the media that emerged in the rebel territories took on the identity of the revolution, promoting those devoted to the cause.

As the new government and constitution begin to take shape, Libya's media has failed to shift from advocacy to neutrality.

I think "neutrality" is a dangerous term when it comes to the media, because too much emphasis on remaining neutral leads to sterile he-said-she-said journalism, where reporters don't feel the need to judge the veracity of opposing positions as long as they give them equal airtime. I prefer the standards of transparency, fairness and accuracy: having an opinion is okay, as long as you are upfront about it and open to changing it, and as long as you don't intentionally ignore facts that conflict with it. But this is the good thing about having an open landscape with a wide array of voices: these standards are naturally encouraged, because when one source violates them, others are quick to call them out. As Libyans' focus shifts to the upcoming election, it's likely that the self-censorship will decrease, and the fierce competition in the media will begin to improve the quality throughout.

Filed Under: journalism, libya, media

Did Libyan Gov't Briefly Turn Internet Access Back On To Try To Stall Rebel Attacks?

from the gotta-have-my-skype dept

The general news headlines right now are entirely about the supposed fall of the Libyan government. Of course, that's way outside of our coverage areas, but an interesting side story to all of this concerns internet access in Lybia, and the good folks at Renesys have the details about the up-and-down nature of the internet yesterday in Libya. Apparently, internet access in the country has been sporadic at best for months. It was completely off for many people -- but some folks still had access. Apparently all internet access goes through 16 blocks of IP addresses, all managed by Libyan Telecom and Technology (LTT). 11 of those blocks have mostly been down, but five have been up -- providing access to a few key areas.

However, just as many expected the a big push on Tripoli... internet access came back to everyone. There's some speculation that perhaps -- just perhaps -- the government hoped that giving people back their internet would stop them from taking to the streets and overturning the government, though that seems a bit unlikely:

And early Sunday morning, the Twitterstream suddenly began reporting something that seemed, on the face of it, totally improbable: the Internet had been turned back on.

Why would the government turn the Internet back on in the middle of an armed uprising? To get people to stay at home and catch up on five months of email? It seemed preposterous. But clearly, as more and more people realized, it had happened. Bandwidth was scarce, but DSL service was back. People started Skypeing with friends and relatives, some reporting hearing live gunfire in the background as their VoIP calls began to connect.

And then, as suddenly as it had come, Tripoli's Internet access stopped working again. For a total of perhaps an hour and a half of uptime, spread out in bursts between the hours of 2:00am and 4:30am, local time, the Internet had been functional again.

It seems more likely that this was just some sort of screwup or "solidarity" move by someone at LTT. Perhaps the details will come out in the near future. But, for now it's yet another interesting tidbit in the ongoing efforts by governments trying to use or block the internet to deal with uprisings.

Filed Under: internet, libya, revolution

Libyans Using Coded Dating Site Messages To Avoid Government Monitoring

from the can't-stop-technology dept

A few different people have sent over this fascinating story of how Libyans have been using a popular muslim dating site to communicate about the protests in that country. It's been widely covered how various protesters around the middle east have been using tools like Facebook and Twitter to organize and communicate, and governments have been responding to that fact, often shutting off access to those sites, or at least monitoring them very, very closely. In order to avoid that, apparently some of the conversations in Libya have migrated to this dating site. The article at ABC News includes plenty of details about how people are communicating on the site, and it's worth a read. Here's a snippet:

The phrase "May your day be full of Jasmine," for example, is a coded reference to what's been called the Jasmine Revolution sweeping the region, Mahmoudi told ABC News.

He said the response, "And the same to you. I hope you will call me" meant they were ready to begin.

If the undercover "lovers" wrote "I want love," it meant "I want liberty," Mahmoudi said.

They also communicated in code the number of their comrades supporting the revolution. The five Ls in the phrase "I LLLLLove you," for example, meant they had five people with them.

Yet another reminder that no matter how hard governments try to suppress certain forms of communication, people always seek out alternative means.

Filed Under: communications, dating, libya, messages, protests

Libya Disconnects From The Internet... Because That Worked So Well In Egypt

from the the-best-laid-plans dept

Late Friday, Libya followed Egypt's trailblazing in shutting off the internet for the entire country. Of course, after Egypt did this, it quickly discovered that it didn't work and only served to increase the resolve of protesters. On top of that, it was a serious economic blow to the Egyptian economy for the week it was offline. Given those lessons, you would think that other countries would know better than to do the same, but apparently that's now how various authoritarian leaders think these days.

Filed Under: disconnection, internet, libya

DailyDirt: Cold Fusion Sounds Like A Free Lunch (There Ain't No Such Thing)

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Clean, cheap and reliable (pick 2!) energy sources would significantly change how the world works. But so far, the technology has eluded us. Various forms of nuclear fusion always seem just a few years in the future -- and meanwhile the sun taunts us with its enormous proof-of-concept activity, just happily turning hydrogen into helium only one astronomical unit away. With that in mind, here are a few quick links on some sorta sketchy ways to get something for nothing.

• Creating copper from nickel and hydrogen -- and producing energy in the process -- sounds like a scam. But when these "Mr. Fusion" units are (or aren't) being exported from Italy later this year, we'll know for sure. [url]
• The Casimir effect and the Casimir-Polder force have been observed in 1948 -- demonstrating that a vacuum isn't really nothing. Here's your free lunch, amateur physicists. Enjoy! [url]
• According to WikiLeaks, Libya traded its nuclear material enrichment program for millions of dollars in other equipment. Did Libyans read The Mouse That Roared in jr. high, too? [url]
• To discover more stuff on alternative energy, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

As always, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: casimir effect, casimir-polder force, cold fusion, libya, nuclear energy

As Was Predicted, Libya Is Shutting Down Some .ly Domains With No Notice

from the watch-out-bit.ly dept

A year and a half ago, Rogers Cadenhead wrote a post, right after the company Bit.ly raised a bunch of money, pointing out that the .ly top level domain (TLD) is from Libya. He wondered if that might lead to trouble down the road, pointing out that the registrar states clearly that no .ly domains can be used in a way "contrary to Libyan law or Islamic morality." Cadenhead pointed out:

So the names must conform to Islamic morality, and it's possible that the use of the domains could fall under the same rules. What are the odds that some of those 20 million clicks on a Bit.ly-shortened URL end up at sites that would be considered blasphemous or otherwise offensive in an Islamic nation? Bit.ly conveniently provides search pages for such topics as Islam, sharia, gambling and sex, any of which contain links that could spark another controversy.

Since then, of course, the .ly TLD has actually become popular with lots of webby startups. I'd guess that most companies registering those domains didn't even think about it. But... exactly as Cadenhead predicted, it appears the registrar has actually started to remove domains it doesn't like. Ben Metcalfe, who had been using vb.ly for a project discovered that the domain had been seized by the registrar, for apparently violating Libyan Islamic/Sharia Law.

Apparently, this has some other .ly domain owners running scared. Even presidential hopeful Mitt Romney stopped using the Mitt.ly domain he'd been using. Bit.ly also uses j.mp (the .mp stands for the Northern Mariana Islands -- which shouldn't be much of a problem, especially since they just licensed the TLD to some other company), so perhaps they might want to start pushing people towards that URL shorterner. Of course, given how many Bit.ly links are out there, I would imagine that it would create quite a bit of havoc if Libya suddenly deleted bit.ly.

Filed Under: .ly, libya