Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Government Social Networks The Internet Your Rights Online

Libya Warns Against Use of Facebook 146

Posted by CmdrTaco from the don't-do-that dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Many Libyan Internet activists have declared their support for the pro-democracy movements and revolutions in the Middle East. After seeing the power of the people succeed in Tunisia and Egypt, they created groups on Facebook to call for political and economic reforms in Libya. Libya's dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, has responded by warning against the use of Facebook."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Libya Warns Against Use of Facebook More

Libya Warns Against Use of Facebook

Comments Filter:

  • There are many reasons to beware of Facebook. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @12:24PM (#35233904)
    But this isn't one of them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The printing press was not good for authoritarians. Neither is online collaboration. [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by FuckingNickName ( 1362625 )

        All governments reflect the will of the majority, except in the very short term. No dictator could stand without popular support. This horrible truth makes "Western Democracy" a polite facade for the same experience everyone's endured since one guy first discovered he could win friends and influence people.

        • Re:There are many reasons to beware of Facebook. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ElectricTurtle ( 1171201 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @12:37PM (#35234112)
          I think you wildly conflate "support" with "acquiescence". A dictator can maintain power so long as the majority would rather not act against him. They don't have to like, let alone act positively toward, that administration.
          • I've noticed, at least in latin america, the dictator needs actual support of around 20%-30% of the population, and, as you say, acquiescence of 60% of the rest or so. You need to have someone to do your bidding, after all. For example, in Nicaragua, president and wannabe dictator Ortega seems to have strong support of around 30% of the population, but the rest would prefer a different president. But the army and a lot of the youth really like him, think he'll bring change or something, and keep voting him

          • I don't think preventing people from accessing Facebook will do any good. The Libyan govt needs to keep people away from Twitter, email, etc. What they really need to do is just shut off the Internet completely...that would get them where they want to be.

            What? Why's everyone looking at me? Why wouldn't that work???

        • There used to be a "rule of thirds" advocated by some historians of the French Revolution. For a revolution to happen, you needed at least 1/3 of the population to actively support it, no more than 1/3 actively opposed, and around 1/3 to be neutral (less if you had more than 1/3 supporting).

          • Indeed. The tipping point is when the number of revolutionaries reaches the number of reactionaries, although you need enough manpower in the first place to effect change (whence the suggested limit of 1/3 neutral). This observations is anathema to the US, which has spent the last 65 years thinking people "need freeing".

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mrbcs ( 737902 )
            I heard this explained this way: If you want to change anything, 1/3 are ahead of you and are helping to change others minds, 1/3 will never change and the last third are watching to see which side to support.

            It was interesting at the conference. The speaker began by telling us that for the good of the seminar, we all had to switch seats. Nobody wanted to.

        • All governments reflect the will of the majority, except in the very short term.

          True, of course. But the will of the majority can be bent, by propaganda. It can be coerced, by intimidation. A dictator cannot rule without the consent of the great majority of his people. That doesn't mean he's limited to nice means in getting it.

        • I strongly disagree, having been lived in a dictatorship myself. A dictator may have the majority of votes on election, but to call it the will of majority would be a gross overstatement.
          Any dictator creates an artificial environment where no strong opponent may ever become strong enough to oppose him. The govenment usually consists of weak officials chosen by their absolute loyalty instead of their abilities and skills. Any opposition leader who is becoming too strong in the eye of a dictator will be oppre

        • All governments reflect the will of the majority

          True to an extent, but the thing about will of the people is that it's easily manipulated if you control their access to information. In particular, if a dictator can fully control such in his country, he can ensure continued (and genuine) support of the majority. Then there's brainwashing through the education system, and so on. See also: cult of personality.

          And that is the reason why Western democracies are fundamentally different. True, someone still controls the channels, but so long as 1) those are dif

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Thing 1 ( 178996 )
          Exactly. I've been wondering when the USA will start dancing in the streets.
      • Agreed. Wasn't the printing press one of the factors that led to the Protestant Reformation?
    • Avoiding Lybian prison is a fairly valid reason.
    • As much as I personally object to the implementation of Facebook and how the masses seem to regard it as the be-all, end-all source for communicating, playing games and generally dicking around, I completely agree that the dissemination of information is generally for the greater good.

      Enabling people to openly speak their minds and to enable reform to happen within their governments when they object to the way that things are being run has been shown to create dialogs to enable peaceful change to happen.
      • An amusing sidelight to this is that SonicWall is blocking anything with the term 'Facebook' in it. I was going to look at yesterday's Facebook thread here on Slashdot when I had a few, um, spare moments. I got this nice banner saying that the system was keeping me safe and clean and free from Internet Evil. Apparently it's just parsing the links looking for nasty words.

        Nothing to see here, move along.....

        • Your administrator has set your Sonicwall router to do that explicitly. Sonicwall as a corporation isn't blocking Facebook for all the world, your IT guy is. Take it up with him. Maybe your boss thinks you're dicking around too much on the internet.

        • Unrelated to the topic but I had a similar moment with eBay yesterday. While listing my Schecter Blackhawk for sale I thought I'd include the usual blurb about no Western Union and all that stuff. Turns out the page you submit the auction through parses looking for such keywords and won't allow you to start tour auction until you remove all references to such verboten services and lacks the logic to differentiate between saying "I won't accept this" and "I will scam you with this". So my auction now says

    • Does anyone know what Gaddafi actually said?

  • Here we go again (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lyrata ( 1900038 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @12:26PM (#35233920)
    Help, help, I'm being repressed!

  • Then Warn Against the Internet! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BoRegardless ( 721219 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @12:29PM (#35233978)

    The "old guard" has no clue. Stiffling communication today will not work much longer.

    The free information exchange makes people want to be free.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Free information exchange? Yes, because EVERYONE wants to know you're playing farmville, taking a crap and poke you!!
      People forget that facebook is just a website, geesh... Unfurl the flags, log-in on facebook!!

    • Re:Then Warn Against the Internet! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @12:58PM (#35234464) Homepage Journal

      I wouldn't bet on that. You sure do not hear about any protests in North Korea.
      I fear that the dictators of the world have learned well from this. If you are going to be a dictator be a brutal ruthless dictator. Watch the news and will see that now when protesters show up tanks will too and not a show of force but as brutal force.
      It is easy to talk about an uncrushable human spirit when you do not have a tank crushing your, your wife's, and or you children's bodies. Yep the old guard has learned well. No half measures anymore. If you are going to rule then rule with a brutal iron fist. Welcome to the world of unintended consequences. The results of the Internet revolution may be getting ride of the just moderately bad dictators but creating more really brutal ones.
      BTW just to be clear I REALLY HOPE I TURN OUT TO BE WRONG.

      • North Korea doesn't have any computers.

        The problem is, as a dictator, you have two choices: you can either give them computers and allow them to have communication, or you can stifle them like North Korea, and end up impoverished. Keeping citizens ignorant is not a plan for economic growth. North Korea still manages to get by, but how long before the people get tired of starving to death?

        • North Korea still manages to get by, but how long before the people get tired of starving to death?

          Practically indefinitely, so long as you can keep them thinking that this is normal state of affairs (i.e. explain that people are starving even worse under capitalist yoke on the other side of the border etc). Which is precisely why you keep all communication channels down for the population at large.

      • Or there are more people who support the dictator than oppose him. There are quite a few North Koreans (and Chinese) who believe the propaganda of their government and fully support them.

      • What percentage of the population of North Korea owns a cell phone, let alone and internet-connected computer? You do have a valid point though -- when you don't know where your next meal is coming from, you generally don't have a lot of energy to put into public protests.

        • when you don't know where your next meal is coming from, you generally don't have a lot of energy to put into public protests.

          Seems to me that's a perfect time to start thinking about public protest. Rising food costs and unemployment were major factors sparking the unrest in Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, etc.

          • Historically, revolutions don't happen when people are completely oppressed. They happen when oppression is partially lifted, giving the populace the resources they need to revolt. The protesters in Egypt are well educated and well versed in modern technology, not exactly the starving poor. Historically, the very poor by themselves never lead revolts. People are easier to control when they have no freedom at all, they become harder to control when you give them a little freedom.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

              That is just it. To have a real revolution you must have some hope of victory and frankly living to see it. People in the west and even slightly free nations really do not get it.
              If you see masses of people being killed you will not join them. Look at the very limited resistance in European nations durring WWII. The movies really over blow the size of the resistance. The French resistance was actually pretty minnor until liberation was near at hand. AKA they thought they had chance to live to see victory.

              • So you neglect the fierce resistance of partisans and underground in Belarus which have lost almost a *third* of its population during the war (unlike Holocaust that tragedy remains relatively unknown) and praise Norway which faired pretty well under German rule with most population going on with their daily lives (you can't really compare several thousands Norwegian causalities with a few millions dead Belarusian people)?
                It did not help Germans that they have slaughtered entire villages in Belarus and Ukra

                • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_and_See [wikipedia.org]

                  Haunted me for weeks afterwards.

                • As for Warsaw uprising -- I tend to believe Churchill when he said that the uprising was started prematurely and with no coordination with the Red Army.

                  This is true (the military leaders of the uprising have remarked, before it began, that they had no hope for success without Soviet intervention), though not for the lack of trying - it's just that Poles were turned down whenever they suggested it. The point however was that by the time it began, Soviet Army had no real reasons not to intervene, other than political (Polish forces in the city were largely aligned with anti-Soviet government-in-exile). So while they didn't have any formal obligation to do so

                  • I don't think so, after the "Bagration" offensive operation the communication lines of the Red Army were overstretched, it needed time to regroup in order to be able to continue the push on the Germans. The vanguard could not force crossing the Vistula on its own. Besides, the Germans have started counter-attacks trying to make use of that situation.
                    As for the Poles that were allegedly turned down -- just two days before the uprising began a polish representative met with Stavka officers but failed to menti

      • That's not as easy as it may sound. You need to be evil to be a brutal ruthless dictator, but that's not enough - you also need to be able to convince others that they are better off following you (even if the majority of the population is not). If the basis of your system is an ideology, then you can't easily make changes which go counter that ideology. You also need to arrange yourself with other power structures within your realm - it's rare that you have all the power to begin with.

        If you look at Burma

      • There are exceptions but for the most part you are wrong. Dictators don't like people pointing out they are being naughty and killing people. Amnesty International would have absolutely no power or authority if it wasn't for that fact. They work to shame repressive regimes by publicizing the crimes in the free world. Such publicity causes diplomatic and other problems such as travel bans. And that's the kicker, even though they rule whatever backwater place, they take their vacations in Europe and even if t

    • Re:Then Warn Against the Internet! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @12:58PM (#35234466) Journal

      People don't want to be free, they want the illusion of freedom while being kept safe, The Internet isn't making people want freedom, it's showing them behind the curtain and the corruption there.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Damek ( 515688 )

      Stiffling communication today will not work much longer.

      I don't see why it can't, though. The internet doesn't exist in a vacuum any more than printing presses did. SOMEONE is doing the work to keep it going in places that need it. Should they stop, it stops.

      P2P cellphone/mifi networks can help, but they're still just electronic tools. Adequate state power can oppress anything, just not, perhaps, forever. (Likewise, adequate vigilance can liberate people at any time - just not, perhaps, forever.)

    • Apparently, neither does the new gaurd.

      Facebook played little role in what happened, for some retarded reason, the same reason as the Google guy, it gets publicized like it brought down the evil Egyption dictator.

      The reality of it is, it was the people who actually got off their asses and made their feeling known that changed Eygpt. Not Facebook, not some Google talking head who happens to live there.

      Facebook doesn't even deserve an honorable mention. More people showed up because of telephone calls from

  • Dictator wars (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Well if Gaddafi thinks i will take care of his farmville while he cleans this mess up he has another thing coming!

  • Now Gaddafi and Streisand are in the same club. I hope they get along.

    • "Do you come here often? Wait a minute... I've got it! You're an Italian! What? You're Jewish? Love your nails. You must be a Libra!..."
    • Oh, Muammar has a long history of getting along just famously with Jews!

  • Like is it Gaddafi, Khadafy, Qadhafi, Qathafi, Gadaafi, Qadhdhafi, or something else?

    • It's really spelled "Goofy", but he prefers euphemisms.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )
      I believe it's actually spelled qaf dhal alif fa ya.

    • We need the legendary remixer of Ballmer's Developers to do a sequel.

      Gaddafi, Khadafy, Qadhafi, Qathafi, Gadaafi, Qadhdhafi!

      Come on!!

    • Re:just how many ways DOES he spell his name? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @01:25PM (#35234898)
      I believe HE spells it in Arabic script. All of your examples are attempts to phonetically spell it with Latin characters.

  • there goes Lybia - don't they learn a thing...? (Score:3)

    by pyalot ( 1197273 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @01:02PM (#35234530)
    I mean, it's not like, duh, obvious or something? Left and right dictatorships are sucumbing to public protest, riot and facebook. And they *all* did the very same thing first, restrict the ways in which citizens can organize themselves, which in turn angried the citizens even more, and the whole thing totally spirals out of control. Dear would-be dictator of some soon to come fledgling and hopeful dictatorship. If you let it get as far as that you have to forbid people from using facebook, you're doing it wrong.
    • The dictators did learn things: some learned that they need to be more pro-active in responding to their people, like this fascinating interview with Assad in Syria, he says directly what he learned: [wsj.com]

      "Syria is stable. Why?" Mr. Assad said. "Because [the dictator has to] be very closely linked to the beliefs of the people. This is the core issue. When there is divergenceyou will have this vacuum that creates disturbances."

      He's probably right.

      The lesson other dictators learned, like Kadafi in Libya, is to be proactive in countering the revolution. [latimes.com] Organize counter-protests (Iran is trying that tactic too, we'll see if it works). Use violence when necessary. Arrest key people. The Egyptians didn't use violence, the lesson other d

      • The Egyptians didn't use violence, the lesson other dictators learned is to use more violence.

        Probably because the Egyptians weren't nearly as bad off as the others.

        Perhaps the fact that the leader realized he wasn't going to last, and backed of rather than making it a blood bath.

        I realize I don't know jack shit about the guy or what he's done to them, but it would appear to me that he wasn't trying all that hard (in an evil way) to stop what happened. We've certainly seen FAR FAR worse done to people in the last 10 years for the exact same reasons.

        One could also argue that the fact that the people

        • I realize I don't know jack shit about the guy or what he's done to them, but it would appear to me that he wasn't trying all that hard (in an evil way) to stop what happened

          Indeed, it may be some consolation, that if the US chooses allies who are dictators, at least we choose the ones who aren't too evil.

    • I mean, it's not like, duh, obvious or something? Left and right dictatorships are sucumbing to public protest, riot and facebook. And they *all* did the very same thing first, restrict the ways in which citizens can organize themselves, which in turn angried the citizens even more, and the whole thing totally spirals out of control. Dear would-be dictator of some soon to come fledgling and hopeful dictatorship. If you let it get as far as that you have to forbid people from using facebook, you're doing it wrong.

      I'm afraid the reality is not as you paint it. In the real world absolutely nobody starts a revolution for the sake of "freedom", "democracy" or any such nonsense. When they do it's because they've been made dirt poor and struggling to get food on the table. The "freedom" and "democracy" shit is just a rationalization after the fact that flatters their ego after they've been humiliated (and so leaving themselves open to be even more humiliated by democratic governments that flatter their ego while they stea

  • It goes to show that enough people want something, they will get it. This works for good and evil purposes. The people who question middle east democracy will lose either a lot of money or influence. It makes me wonder if people in the US would have the will to ask for their freedoms back. The Patriot act, and the TSA are a few of the major examples of how we are moving away from the rule of law (as of the Constitution) and the will of the people. There are many reasons for fragmentation, but I don't belie
  • Would using proxies help avoid the attention of Libyan secret police?

  • How did they get the message out?

  • I gotta say, with the exception of this (and of course all things fashion-related), Gaddafi and I don't agree on much.

  • Iran and Libya don't care what the world thinks, and don't care about body counts.
  • For all you hip Libyan geeks out there (and I think you qualify if you're reading slashdot comments), listen up:
    It's time to diversify. Facebook is quick and easy to set up groups and organize. Woo. But as the article points out, it's also an easy target. But the Internet is bigger then that. Make your own page, conscript a forum somewhere, run a chat server, or a BBS for that matter. Tell people about it. Link to it. Replicate posts from one system to another. Use the full force of the Internet. There's n
    • Yeah, but if you want to organize thousands, or tens of thousands of people, then your board will get noticed. The "tell people about it" means the security forces will know about it, too. It might actually be beneficial to use a platform like facebook - not just because it's a good way to connect like minded people, but also because it's popular among the people the regime relies on. It's harder for them to to block it, because they'd be pissing off their supporters, too.

  • Wikilieaks (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    How is this different from our government saying people should not look at the Wikileaks site?

  • It is interesting that the article has no quote where Gaddafi makes this statement. I believe it is being made up by the press to encourage the use of Facebook. I think even Gaddafi knows that the best way to get someone to do something is to tell them they shouldn't.

  • for a wrong situation.

Slashdot Top Deals

C for yourself.

Close