Shit Has Gotten Real in Egypt

Penguin wrote:

Notanoni wrote:

Of course, how stupid of me! That's why the news is full of reports about how Egypt did not shut off the Internet, and how Egypt did successfully shut off all other forms of communication!

Of course it's easier than shutting off the Internet!

If missing the point was a sport, you could go pro. You ever think that there can be forms of control beyond "completely cut off" and "unrestricted, free-flowing?"

That wasn't my point either. I never said it wasn't a problem. I was agreeing with those who stated that cutting off the Internet was a particularly poor way to try to stop a revolution, and that it will make protesters more pissed off and more determined to succeed (and thus is a largely counterproductive move by the government).

Yes, it would be easier to organize with the Internet. Yes, other forms of communication are almost certainly in a state other than unrestricted and free flowing (but then, they never were free-flowing in Egypt's current regime).

Specifically, I was disagreeing with those who thought the loss of the Internet had to be a largely insurmountable problem.

Really, you've been told this before, though you don't want to hear examples.

What, is real-world verifiable info that is a known part of history too unreliable for your personal system of logic to handle?

Why are you so determined to ignore that there have been more political revolutions with no Internet than with one? What part of it don't you understand?

TheHedonist wrote:

Alhazred wrote:

Because the government of Egypt cares that soccer moms in the western world are seeing news coverage of protests and problems that will cause them to say "the government of Egypt should treat it's people better" while taking action in the form of going to the mall to get some shopping done.

...what?

Looks like a wordy and awkward way to say that Egypt doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks, because the rest of the world can't be bothered to act on it.

Notanoni wrote:

That wasn't my point either. I never said it wasn't a problem. I was agreeing with those who stated that cutting off the Internet was a particularly poor way to try to stop a revolution, and that it will make protesters more pissed off and more determined to succeed (and thus is a largely counterproductive move by the government).

So instead of arguing that point, you chose to argue about whether or not revolution is possible without the Internet.

Quote :

Yes, it would be easier to organize with the Internet. Yes, other forms of communication are almost certainly in a state other than unrestricted and free flowing (but then, they never were free-flowing in Egypt's current regime).

And there's another problem: The comment that cutting off the Internet would only piss people off more was in response to Syria cutting off access, where such a move makes more sense. In Egypt, the stage where the Internet matters the most is largely over. But now, it needs to be there to sustain the momentum; that's why the government is still trying to suppress information.

Quote :

Specifically, I was disagreeing with those who thought the loss of the Internet had to be a largely insurmountable problem.

Really, you've been told this before, though you don't want to hear examples.

What, is real-world verifiable info that is a known part of history too unreliable for your personal system of logic to handle?

Why are you so determined to ignore that there have been more political revolutions with no Internet than with one? What part of it don't you understand?

The reason I dismiss the examples of riot and revolution sans Internet is simple: They weren't relevant to what I was saying, especially with regard to the examples that took place before the Internet existed or was even really available to the public. I pointed this out in a previous post, in which you apparently ignored everything but the comment on the ability to control other forms of media. If you're "disagreeing with those who thought the loss of the Internet had to be a largely insurmountable problem," who exactly are you talking to? Because apparently this whole time we should've been talking about whether cutting the Internet off is counter-productive or not; instead we've been arguing about whether it's relevant.

So, in that case, I would have to bring up the relatively recent election protests in Iran. Here, we have a case of protests occurring when the Internet is both in existence and fairly widely used. Here, the government scrambled to control the accessibility of information through the Internet but they didn't, or were unable to cut off access entirely. People didn't get fired up because the government took their WoW away when they went on an IP-blocking spree; they got out and protested because they were being informed of the government's crimes in near-real time.

Really, people being inconvenienced by having their Internet taken away pales in comparison to learning that the state police are "disappearing" their neighbors, friends and family. You can bet other oppressive regimes, like Egypt and Syria's, were paying close attention to how the protests played out. They clearly see the Internet as a serious threat.

Put on Al Jazeera now!. One million people in Tahrir Square. Stirring stuff.

Now violence has erupted between Mubarak supporters and protesters.

The Yahoo article was rather misleading, I found. Every account indicates that this was staged; there've been claims (a lot of) the pro-Mubarak protesters are actually not protesters at all, but plainclothes police. I'm to angry to properly articulate my thoughts about the lowness of this move, but the Guardian has good stuff, as always.

CNN news crew roughed up by pro-Mubarak thugs. It looks like these goons don't want anybody filming what they're doing.

rachel wrote:

CNN news crew roughed up by pro-Mubarak thugs. It looks like these goons don't want anybody filming what they're doing.

Dear Pro-Mubarak People,

If you're trying to gain sympathy for your cause, you're doing it wrong. The media is not going to write or broadcast favorable reports when you beat them up.

kthxbye

You'd think they'd be nicer to the people who're in bed with their regime. Surprised the US coverage hasn't all been propaganda in favour of Mubarak's thugs.

Lady Anne wrote:

rachel wrote:

CNN news crew roughed up by pro-Mubarak thugs. It looks like these goons don't want anybody filming what they're doing.

Dear Pro-Mubarak People,

If you're trying to gain sympathy for your cause, you're doing it wrong. The media is not going to write or broadcast favorable reports when you beat them up.

kthxbye

Anderson Cooper got punched in the head 10 times, the story says. He may not be a top dog in broadcast news, but he's not exactly a nobody.

Apparently, my university was on the news today because of an anti-Mubarak demonstration. At least, I think it was anti-Mubarak. When will student protesters learn that you can't get your message across if you don't enunciate your chants? "Hey hey, ho ho, garblegarblegarble go!" just confuses people.

I was surprised they got attention. We have at least one protest a quarter here--media outlets never show up. But this got coverage, according to my parents (I was teaching all day, so I missed 98% of it). And there were all of fifty people out there--on par with fee hike protests, actually.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Aaahhh, failbook.

rachel wrote:

CNN news crew roughed up by pro-Mubarak thugs. It looks like these goons don't want anybody filming what they're doing.

Which probably explains why they also hassled Christiane Amanpour.

grmblfjx wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Aaahhh, failbook.

oh america.

never change.

I can't find an english news source for it, but the military or police have arrested a Swedish reporter, Bert Sundström, and nobody knows where he is.

the asylum wrote:

oh america.

never change.

Judging from the Asian assumption, that probably wasn't American.

Penguin wrote:

the asylum wrote:

oh america.

never change.

Judging from the Asian assumption, that probably wasn't American.

I maintain it is perfectly reasonable to assume someone on the internet who does not know the difference between Asia and Africa is American.

TheHermit wrote:

Penguin wrote:

the asylum wrote:

oh america.

never change.

Judging from the Asian assumption, that probably wasn't American.

I maintain it is perfectly reasonable to assume someone on the internet who does not know the difference between Asia and Africa is American.

Assumption that a brown person is Asian is more of a UK/European thing. I'd expect an American to assume Africa first for anything up to and including Afghanistan, so it's not like I'm saying Americans have a better grasp of geography.

Anyhoo:

Threatening reporters is usually a bad idea.

grmblfjx wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Well I'm sure he won't simply give up at the end of his term only to be replaced by someone promising hope and change but delivering neither.

I wouldn't say it's gotten God-Awful yet, at least by the news we in England are getting. But I would say that it's getting pretty close. The current dictator is setting his supporters against the rebels.

Personally, if I was him I'd be skipping the country and buying a nice place free of risk of death to retire to before he finds himself being paddled up shit creek, headless.

President Mubarak, you've had your fun. You said it yourself; you're fed up of being in power. Now might be a good time to get out and let somebody else take the rap.

Quote :

I wouldn't say it's gotten God-Awful yet,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

If you LOOKED, you'd also notice the part where I also said '

Quote :

at least by the news we in England are getting. But I would say that it's getting pretty close.

Maybe English news isn't making it look so bad. Or maybe I missed a report.

Give it... I'm guessing 24 hours. Or less. Right now we're up shit creek, but we do have a boat and also a paddle. 24 hours and the rioters will remove not only the paddle but also the boat and also, somebody important enough to be reported dead will be dead. And probably their family too.

In other words, at the moment it's still safe for English reporters to be in the country and talking to protestors. The rioting is still fairly moderate. 24 hours, and it won't be.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

The current dictator is setting his supporters against the rebels.

Not to mention taking police off the streets and opening the doors to a prison to let gangs of criminals roam free. This explains why there have been reports of "protesters" looting.

Doubtless to make protesters look bad and him look more vital.

Like I said, 24 hours and it'll be civil war. Well, more like about 9 hours now.