Seems like a lot of the mullah supporters are leaving in the totalitarian and decadent west. The regular Iranians won’t be having the same luxuries of free societies afforded to the ones outside Iran. Sad day when you want to oppress your own people while they have the hated western freedoms all for themselves.So another great chinese firewall?
So how long before the iranian members here get cut off?
All governments have self preservation interests to all aspects of itself.The burden is actually on you to provide evidence as to how China or the DPRK are being threatened in their existence by the supposed treachery of government employees making filtered internet content available to local masses. That was indeed the starting point of your attempted counter.
But such controls IS impossible. China is considerably more permissive than NKR, aka the 'Hermit Kingdom', but even as tightly controlled the NKR-eans, many of them still somehow managed to know more than their fellow citizens, and annually, many of them risked their lives trying to escape the country.So now you're actually arguing that China is achieving safety and stability in the face of western soft war-type destabilization attempts, but that it is doing so through other means than actual control of western disinformation, which according to you is impossible? As long as there are means to neutralize these western efforts, whether through the control of information or otherwise, the result remains unchanged.
Let us take what you said in post 141.That said, I very much doubt that China would enjoy similar levels of societal peace if the bulk of its population had direct access to subversive western media. The ways in which this subversive content currently enters China on the one hand, and actual exposition to a broad propaganda apparatus as Iranians are experiencing on the other hand, just do not have the same level of impact. Which is why western regimes and their mouthpieces aren't exactly happy about any talk of more effective internet regulation by Iran, quite the contrary.
Yes, I would be happy to live in Iran.
If you think that the west is free than you are a total idiot!Seems like a lot of the mullah supporters are leaving in the totalitarian and decadent west. The regular Iranians won’t be having the same luxuries of free societies afforded to the ones outside Iran. Sad day when you want to oppress your own people while they have the hated western freedoms all for themselves.
No, not necessarily. It's just that those in charge of formulating and publicizing your ideology have much less material means at their disposal to do so than your mortal enemies. Hence, it is perfectly fair and necessary to even the playing field through corrective measures.You want tonight ideas with restriction that will always fail.
If your ideology can't compete with foreign one and let say a problematic foreign ideology then there must be some serious flaws in your ideology
Url's of websites don't change on an hourly basis. The model I proposed is not compromised by data encryption. If a VPN allows for it, so can a nation-wide central exchange point.The problem is that the list change on hourly base and also the website won't belong to you and the data sent there will be encrypted so those website can act as gateway to the real Internet
This is an ideologically, almost religiously tainted simplification of political and social mechanisms, processes and factors.All governments have self preservation interests to all aspects of itself.
Contestant authorities ALWAYS result in a civil war. As an American, I point you to the US Civil War where the cause was slavery. One side, or authority, want to preserve slavery. The other side, or authority, want to abolish it. The result is a civil war. An anti-government movement always have an intellectual beginning. Somewhere. Somehow. Some times the reigning authority find out. Often times, not. So it behooves the reigning authority to 'nip it in the bud', as Americans say, whenever possible.
Authoritarian governments is always fearful of information and the most knowledgeable of verboten knowledge is the government itself, ie: government employees. All the way up to the top dog.
The fact that authoritarian governments like China, NKR, the Soviet Union, the GDR, et al, always tries to keep their government employees under control by way of generous benefits and punishments are evident enough that authoritarian governments FEELS threatened. A civil war is always started from the inside. The intellectual foundation may have external influences, but it is always up to the natives to produce that anti-government movement.
One, control of information in liberal so-called "democracies" is total and absolute, it suffers no exception whatsoever, insofar as the system is perfectly tailored to make only one outcome possible and rule out all others, despite its pluralistic outer shell. So such control is perfectly possible indeed.But such controls IS impossible. China is considerably more permissive than NKR, aka the 'Hermit Kingdom', but even as tightly controlled the NKR-eans, many of them still somehow managed to know more than their fellow citizens, and annually, many of them risked their lives trying to escape the country.
There's no concrete proof for this. It's not as if western regimes have failed to destabilize capitalist and/or prosperous societies through soft power means in the past.How the Chinese government remains in control are multitudes. The allowance of the practice of capitalism is the majority successful. The Chinese people are too busy trying to 'get rich' to worry about being revolutionaries. On the other hand, the HK Chinese have been free for a few generations and HK is nearly a contestant authority on mainland China. The missing ingredient is the military: none. So the only challenge they can pose to the Chinese government is on the moral plane, which can be easily ran over by PLA tanks.
China's position vis a vis the US is only strengthening as time goes by. That's what has been taking place for the past decades, and there's no reversal in sight.Taiwan is the true and credible contestant authority. Free and armed. Not counting the world's most powerful country (US) as a political ally and %90 a military ally, which China definitely do not want. For now, mainland Chinese are sufficiently nationalistic and patriotic for the government to have a maintenance program and not an active house-to-house repressive response on the people.
You seem to have experienced a slight comprehension issue here.Let us take what you said in post 141.
...they would certainly benefit a lot if their benevolent state authorities finally proceeded to regulating the internet in such a manner as to neutralize much of the dangerous subversiveness ensuing from the incomparably massive propaganda and social engineering campaign which hostile regimes have been subjecting them to.'they' = the Iranian people
'benevolent state authorities' = Mr. SalarHaqq
There are many other forms of kindness, but that's off topic.As for the 'benevolent state authorities', the word 'benevolence' implies at least one desirable character from many characters: kindness.
There are two types of kindness: maternal and paternal.
The maternal kindness is momentary, close, and immediate. When the child had a fall, the mother takes charge. Clean up the wound and the tears, and calm the child. The paternal kindness is remote and visionary. The father is not cruel in any way. He is just as loving as the mother. But he understand that as long as the child recovers, the lesson is that life can be hard and that is the vision the child must learn.
English happens to be my fourth language in chronological order and in terms of how closely related I am to the sources through which I learnt it (although probably my third in terms of mastery).You are clearly the better wordsmith than I. English is my 3rd language so at least I have an excuse for that inferiority.
Let me reformulate this to better reflect my point: the western and zionist regimes are experts at not just propaganda and collective brainwashing, not just to intensive psy-ops, but also at social engineering and at inflicting definitive change to collective behavioral patterns. These measures they have been subjecting the Iranian nation to.You want the Iranian government is to be that benevolent paternalistic authority.
- I know better than you.- I have seen the Internet.- Many Iranians are strong.- Many Iranians are weak.
So because of item four, access to the Internet must be controlled and allowed contents must be filtered BEFORE those contents get to the masses. Because of the weak among the strong, I must treat ALL citizens as the lowest common denominator.
As explained, things are far more complex than an imagined binary opposition between supposedly "authoritarian" and supposedly "democratic" types of governance. And control measures have shown to be effective at preserving social peace and stability in the face of western-waged soft war.Substitute 'Internet' for anything that is non-Iranian and non-Islamic. Substitute 'Iranians' for any nationality. Then look at history and see that what you want for Iran have been done before. Done and failed. The four reasons I listed have served as the same unitary justification for all authoritarian governments. Nothing new.
I wasn't talking about forms of government.A technocracy. I think the Soviets and the Maoist Chinese tried it. You might want to look up the consequences.
That's factual, much rather than a leap.The true leap here is the assertion that the Iranian people will be better off under government control of access to the Internet.
Social scientists would differ.Of which those of us steeped in applied principles of any kind have difficulties accepting.
Western-zionist propaganda has nothing really "intellectual" to it. On the contrary, one of its objectives is dumbing down and mentally conditioning the masses.What you are proposing is only one degree, or two at best, away from ordinary lives, down to what we can eat and . The closer the application of said proposal to my life, the more I want to know if you ever lived that potential life. You are not talking living on Mars or the debate between Freud and Nietzsche. Esoteric issues that would remain on my bookshelf 364 or maybe 363 days out of the yr. You are asking all of us to restrict our daily intellectual consumption, even if just for entertainment purposes, all because you claimed to know what is better for us than we for ourselves. So yes, it is human nature to ask if you ever lived that life, what was it like, would you live it again, and how would you apply it today.
Responses from whom? Resident zionist activists hostile to Iran? An American-Iranian who hardly ever posts and whose views are in the minority among Iranian users? Assorted Pakistani members with either a bias against Iran, or strong secularist views, who are automatically attracted by topics like these even though they too represent a minority among their compatriots? That's not really a faithful reflection of the local Iranian community.Judging from a few responses, seems convincing enough.
No.YOU have. Indirectly.
Benevolent because that's what they actually are. Not as a descriptive adjective for a form of government I advocate. By the way, Iran would remain democratic even if my proposal was put into effect. As for bloody, let's not even get into the body count caused by so-called liberal democracies throughout time.So there we have it: You are a believer in the idea of a benevolent dictatorship. Of which, do not have a successful record in governance. Quite bloody, actually.
No, they allow it because the production of information is monopolistic or oligopolistic at best, as far as its economic ownership is concerned, and because the elites which eternally reproduce themselves at the top of this structure are by definition loyal to the system, which they themselves constitute.The funny part here is that you brought on 'Western totalitarianism' where we allowed a two-way street of information flow, confident that our ideological beliefs will withstand comparison to alternatives made by our citizens.
Or to actually subscribe to what I am proposing. Yes indeed, personal stories aren't relevant here.Iranians do not need to see your life experience to reject what you are proposing.
Am done. There are plenty of Iranians who believe in this line of...ahhh...'reasoning'...so this is pretty much a clarion call to unify behind your arguments. Good luck, sir. Same to all Iranians, on/off the Internet....which are in the hands of an oligarchic elite itself linked to occult and unelected power centers and networks (from international zionism to freemasonry)...
I'm sorry but I can't agree that they have less tools for inside Iran maybe for outside yes but inside Iran noNo, not necessarily. It's just that those in charge of formulating and publicizing your ideology have much less material means at their disposal to do so than your mortal enemies. Hence, it is perfectly fair and necessary to even the playing field through corrective
Well, once you install a parabolic antenna, you get access to between 80 and 90 foreign-based satellite TV broadcasters, ranging from the odd low budget one-man enterprise to major networks that are either directly state-sponsored or state-owned, all of which participate in propaganda or social / cultural engineering against Iran in one way or another.I'm sorry but I can't agree that they have less tools for inside Iran maybe for outside yes but inside Iran no
parabulic antenna get you nothing but interference and headache and the channels you may get worth shit , I have been there and decided to throw away the equipment.Well, once you install a parabolic antenna, you get access to between 80 and 90 foreign-based satellite TV broadcasters, ranging from the odd low budget one-man enterprise to major networks that are either directly state-sponsored or state-owned, all of which participate in propaganda or social / cultural engineering against Iran in one way or another.
IRIB doesn't have 80 channels. They have at most 20 or so, including regional ones.
And then there's the internet, which has no less than 40 million users in Iran. Remove very young children as well as the very old, and these 40 million represent a clear majority of the relevant population. Also, one internet line can be used by several people. And given the relative laxity of the current control architecture, accessing filtered websites is very much child's play, seeing how it can be done through simple VPN services, which are extremely easy to get hold of anywhere across Iran. It can be assumed that all citizens who want to access filtered websites, are doing so already. The VPN certainly reduces connection speeds, but with general network standards constantly getting faster, at one point this will no longer be much of an issue.
Now when it comes to the internet, I believe there's no need to remind how biased this platform is when it comes to information on Iranian affairs. Quantity-wise, Iran simply stands no chance to neutralize the propaganda its enemies are flooding the internet with. Quality-wise, Iran still has a very long way to go in order to be able to challenge them.
This is in addition to the fact - which I could already have used as an argument at earlier stages of the discussion, that western regimes and major interactive websites managed by western-based companies practice political censorship on a noticeable scale themselves... and guess who their main victim is? Indeed, official Iranian media as well as private pro-IR users on so-called "social media". Just observe how Instagram, YouTube, Twitter et al. are harassing and silencing prominent pro-Iran activists on a regular basis in all sorts of ways (from downright shutting down their accounts to slapping age restrictions on their input, their methods are manifold).
And then the main search engine that is Google, a central tool for most internet users, will practice indirect censorship by burying any search result susceptible of conveying a message favorable to Iran, beneath tons of links exhibiting the obligatory anti-Iran or at least anti-IR bias. In fact this is a method Google has put into practice with increasing force, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed this: whatever Google search you launch about contemporary Iranian politics, the first results displayed will almost exclusively originate from western or affiliated mainstream media, often with zionist ones in pole position. And shockingly enough, they even adjusted search results for queries made in Farsi, or for topics more or less exclusive to the domestic Iranian press: indeed, when conducting this sort of a search, Iranian media known to be close to the reformist and/or moderate factions (such as Shargh, Hamshahri etc) will quasi monopolize the initial results! Media more related to the revolutionary or principlist camps will appear much further down, if at all.
Good luck for Iran trying to set up internet tools such as search engines, video hosting sites or "social media" capable of competing with their western equivalents on a purely technical level. This is by no means an easy thing to achieve and requires massive amounts of know-how and experience. It's almost like asking Iranian cinema to be able to rival Hollywood in terms of soft power directed at general audiences. Although I agree that the sooner Iran commits itself to the task, and the more resources it allocates to it, the better. But it's not as if reformists or moderates really had much interest in pursuing these projects in the first place. I hope the upcoming administration will do more in this regard.
Plus, beyond the biased practices of major websites, there is in fact direct censorship of Iranian media by western authorities. How many times was Press TV for instance taken off air by regimes such as the UK? "Dot com" domains of Iranian media seized, like Washington has recently done? And they expect Iran to allow their propaganda effort, which is historically unprecedented in scale and intensity, to reach Iranian households freely and without any hurdles... Whereas in fact, the mere principle of reciprocity does entitle Iran to contain this propaganda.
Last but not least, the western regimes' Farsi-language mouthpieces happen to spread certain content, the kind of which not a single western liberal "democracy" would actually tolerate, given how it runs counter to basic universally valid norms.
An example would be the legitimization of separatist discourse, of separatist organizations and figureheads by these western-controlled anti-Iran media. Many liberal "democracies" such as Spain have repeatedly resorted to coercive measures to rein in and stop in their tracks separatist movements in their country (see how the government in Madrid squashed the referendum on independence organized by Catalan separatists, and how separatist politicians enjoying a local electoral mandate were prosecuted by the Spanish judiciary). Now it could be argued that some western regimes have not dealt with this kind of issue in a similarly heavy handed manner as Spain.
But then, western-sponsored media targeting Iran have gone even farther than that. Namely, by seeking to legitimize terrorist grouplets which use violence against Iran and the Iranian people. Do you remember Voice of America's infamous interview with Abdol Malek Rigi, ringleader of the so-called "Jondollah" terrorist grouplet? In that interview, the official US foreign language service introduced him as an "armed opponent" or even "resistance fighter" or something along those lines - I don't remember the exact terminology, but it was pretty much designed to whitewash the activities of what was clearly a terrorist organization, one which deliberately bombed mosques (including through the use of suicide bombers) and other gatherings of civilians in Iran.
Now this - the attempted legitimization of terrorist entities, or giving them a voice, is something no western regime would tolerate, not even the most "liberal" one. Yet, it is precisely what these Persian-language media based in the west are trying to brainwash the Iranian people with. There can be no tolerance for these types of media, and Iran will be in its right to censor them more efficiently than before on its own territory.