Why? Single EU countries have widespread censoring infrastructure in place and IP-based bans are common and normal. They are just not at stupid to ban hi-profile sites yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Italy#In... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Denmark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Repu... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Unit...
Please note the common pattern of the justifications: censorship starts often with "terrorism/children abuse/pornography", then covers "counterfeit goods/media", finally "libel/hate speech".
I don’t have a problem with any of these. I have even less a problem when every country on your list has had recent, vivid debate on extreme speeches, and tolerated everything that wasn’t clearly in categories that unambiguously deteriorate political discourse.
I understand that this might shock some Americans who don’t understand it, but the overwhelming majority of Europeans would not even hesitate a second to refuse US-like free speech were anything goes, and Koch brothers finance everything, from blatant hurtful lies, attacks on science and fuel race-hatred.
I fully expect that this comment, like every similar one on Hacker News I made prior, to be heavily down-voted by people who have no issue with the form of what I say (polite, argued and relevant) but disagree with my opinion. Doing so goes against the principles of this forum, and you should be ashamed to think about it.
Erdogan is just a tinpot dictator of the Islamic variety, but he seems to be happy to keep in NATO a country that is absolutely critical for NATO operations in the Middle-East, so we keep pretending he's just a "conservative-minded" democratic leader. Unless Europe is happy to give Putin's supporters more ammunition for "double standard" arguments, it's time to call a spade a spade.
Nobody knew what exactly could/would trigger chaos in Turkey, but there are many candidates: The Kurdish question, the post-Kemalistic resurgence of Islam, the Alevites...
I sincerely hope that these expectations were to pessimistic. If Turkey could somehow "capture" all its societal tensions within the framework of a stable parlamentary system, we (both Turkey and the EU) could greatly benefit from Turkish accession.
It's a good example of how pluralism is a more important aspect of democracy than the actual voting. People like to complain about the US two-party system and condemn obvious one-party states, but the reality of a lot of recent or fragile democracies is that they are one-and-a-bit party states. There's an establishment and an opposition, and the opposition are allowed to exist but have a limited influence on actual control.
AFAIK, opposition parties (and political parties in general) haven't been included in any constitutions at all.
#thoughtexperiment #whimsy
- Occupation of Cyprus (EU member state) populated mostly by Greeks (Greece is EU member as well) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus)
- Armenian Genocide of 1915. 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Turkish government, because of being Christians.
21 Countries and 43 U.S. states have recognized the Armenian Genocide. Turkey denies the Armenian Genocide.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide)
They constantly suppress rights of Kurds.
Seriously, I agree that Turkey needs to do a lot to rise up to the European standards but I don't think it helps the conversation to bring these sensitive issues up every time you see the words EU and Turkey in the same sentence.
edit: Dear down-voters, I understand your sensitivity on the issue but please try to understand what I'm arguing against. I actually accept the Armenian Genocide, and support Kurdish rights, and the rights of any other minorities. What I'm arguing against is this continuous flame-war. See my other comments on those issues if you challenge my honesty. Thanks.
Just to add another perspective to whom read yours comment:
-So called "Armenian Genocide" is not acclaimed by Turkey and the allegations imply the predecessor of Turkey, the Ottoman Empire.
Only then, even if you accept this as a genocide, you should at least consider removal of Germany as a member from EU. Quote from the link you provided: "and it is the second most-studied case of genocide after the Holocaust"
Holocaust (which is definitely not just an allegation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
Probably all the better for Turkey.
They would be better off economically and culturally. Europe is more harmonious than the the other spheres of influence surrounding Turkey namely the Middle East and Russia.
If only it was that easy. Dutch ISPs were forced to censor The Pirate Bay, but we're still in the EU!
(j/k)
Schools in Turkey teaches in geography classes that Turkey is a bridge between Asia and Europe. But this is also true for our social structure: We sometimes turn our face to europe, ass to asia and sometimes we turn our ass to europe and face to middle east. Our last 12 years was a sample for second statement.
(by the way, i'm sorry for my english skills)
> (by the way, i'm sorry for my english skills)
If you feel the need to append this statement, that's a good sign that you don't need to. Your English is fine (should be "schools teach", not "schools teaches", and I wouldn't have used "sample for" there, but who cares -- it's clear and unambiguous). It's the morons who don't care that end up being painful to read.
If you feel the need to append this statement, that's a good sign your comment will detract from the discussion.
Anyhow, can anyone recommend a book or some articles on how to improve writing skills, especially of technical nature ?
What could have happened to Athens in the last five years that I haven't been there that makes you say that? You mean in terms of freedom of speech? If so, I seriously doubt that.
For example this man in the video is the Minister of Transport, Maritime and Communication. He is the reponsible minister for internet in Turkey. Today some journalists asked him his opinions about Twitter ban and he responded "i will answer your question with another question. tell me what would you feel if someone opens a news twitter account with your wife's full name and shared photoshopped pics?".
(http://www.cnnturk.com/video/turkiye/ulastirma-bakani-elvani...)
Well, for your question: A lot of people saw that the ship is sinking and leaved it. The only people still supports erdogan are some business men who has some contracts with government, erdogan's inner circle and their base supporters who are mostly not well educated and don't have internet connection.
So, at least 40% of our country is against his censorship.
It is easy enough to use and gets the job done perfectly.
[1]:https://twitter.com/theTunnelBear/status/446776207367864320
[0] http://imgur.com/MSXfVyH [1] https://www.torproject.org/dist/manual/short-user-manual_tr....
Turkey is also a massive nation in a very militarily strategic location -- if it were to destabilize then things would get ugly very quickly. With Libya and Syria in such recent memory, toppling a government is no longer appealing at all.
They had blocked twitter... merely by removing it from some DNS servers that they thought were the only ones used by people in Turkey? Or something?
That seems like a particularly ineffectual way to try and block twitter. And I don't understand, if they have the ability to _actually_ block Google DNS... why don't they just do the same thing to actually block twitter?
This makes no sense, I must be missing something. Anyone have the scoop?
Google DNS being just two IP addresses makes it a lot easier to shut down without collateral damage.
We can all speculate, but really I was hoping that someone had some additional information, perhaps because they are in Turkey, on what's going on exactly.
(Is it too much to expect discussion of technical details on HN, instead of political bickering? On anything involving Turkey, anywhere on the internet, yeah, it probably is. The reason why I'm curious about technical details is, of course, because I have an interest in knowing how to circumvent and help people circumvent whatever censors are up to these days).
http://www.dailydot.com/technology/turkey-twitter-ban-tor-us...
A regime with enough support can wipe out thousands or millions of people, and a single well-publicized massacre or act of outright corruption can precipitate a complete loss of legitimacy.
In Egypt, you could say controlling the population through grain subsidies is a double edged sword if there's ever an interruption in the supply. The tribesmen on camel proved to be a pretty weak constituency contrasted with the military as an Egyptian institution with allegiances to the population at large, and a senior leadership that ultimately would resume power without its former figurehead. Nominally, it was mass grass roots protests that overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood, which wasn't owed credit for the overthrow of Mubarak anyway, but "we'll do you the favor of carrying out a coup if you put x many people in Tahrir square," is much more like a behind the scenes coalition between interest groups than an embrace of democratic principles. That the groups still had the institution of the military to carry it all out, then quietly implement more effective controls on dissent, meant that the revolution might as well never have occurred, as long as your name isn't Mubarak and there are no more shortages in food.
In Iran, it was more of a challenge to decouple the regime from a specific scapegoat without undermining its legitimacy. Maybe it is less resilient if any flaws or corruption are openly acknowledged. And yet, there is probably a lot of national solidarity and pride implicit with the revolution (1979) and the war with Iraq. Not only were there more thugs, and they were on motorcycles rather than camels, but the Revolutionary Guard is probably both a patron of the regime and an institution that is respected and gets significant, automatic respect on its own. It may simply have been that the more dynamic classes of society simply didn't have the real power necessary to upset the status quo regardless of restrictions on internet or filming of abuses.
In Turkey, the last decade has seen the very steady dismantling of the military as an institutional check on government. I don't think this is the same as 'proactive' governments dismantling institutions like an independent judiciary, a free press, or erosion of conventions on privacy and freedoms from surveillance that you see in places like Pakistan and the United States. The mechanisms for a military veto are almost always extralegal, and no matter how meritocratic advancement within the officer corps is, it's fundamentally anti-democratic. And yet, what has he done with consolidation of power around a more unitary executive? Instead of fostering the growth of more legitimate institutions that would ultimately strengthen the country and cut down on corruption, he seems to have focused on his own patronage stack, whether that involves cashing in public space, or squashing opponents. There is some irony that the allegations against him many very well be as trumped up as some of those against former military leadership, but possibly, equally in service of the ultimate public good.
All that said, ineffective attempts to shut down communication probably cause much less harm than making a bigger show of firing artillery into Syria or shooting down jets to gin up nationalist fervor.
Anyway, that's my hamfisted attempt at a background for coming up with a 21st century theory on revolutions, probably rife with inaccurate characterizations. So maybe restrictions on the internet can impact general prosperity in ways that rob regimes of their legitimacy, and they're definitely not a sign of strength. However, we can be pretty irascible on issues of liberty, and yet we're pretty slow countering threats to the free flow of information, or the creation of new tools for cronyism.
Edit: Ripe = not just for making it but adopting it as well.
keep calm
and shut down the government
Easier said than done.
“There is the interest lobby behind Gezi Park protests.”
“They had alcohol in Dolmabahçe Mosque.”
“They assaulted my sisters covering their hair.”
As physicians we are following with worry the discriminating, stigmatizing and polarizing discourse adopted by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan since Gezi Park protests.
We were actually appalled hearing what he said yesterday in Gaziantep about Berkin Elvan.
Normally, no one would try to bring two families both losing their child in confrontation. Normally, no one would declare as “terrorist” a 15 years old child shot by police while out for buying a loaf of bread and lost his life after 269 days of struggle for survival.
Normally, no one would slant playing marbles as if they were cannonballs to fire.
Normally, no one would provoke a rally crowd to protest a mother who lost her child only two days ago.
We are physicians.
We know about to many psychological and emotional states of human beings.
We are worried about the emotional state of Prime Minister Erdoğan.
We are utterly worried.
Indeed worried about himself, his close circles and our country.
And we share our worries with public.
Wait, what?
