Cutting Internet in Iran

[Aryzin]

It will still represent a huge step forward for Iran and, by logical equivalence, a significant impediment to western ability to orchestrate "colored revolutions" and the like inside Iran, compared to present conditions.

There are also ways around the problem of assorted civil servants leaking blocked information to the public. I don't rank the Soviet Union, especially after it engaged in detente with the US, as the most apt in this regard. Also, it can safely be assumed that all things being equal and no other factors coming into play, China is shielded from major, system-threatening destabilization attempts of this kind. Hong Kong is a special case and an exception, for obvious reasons. Time will tell.



Not yet, it is however on my very extensive "to do" list and I did actually read several in-depth reviews of the book. Enough to grasp what the concept he introduces is basically about.



Because I try my best to be a fair person. Which, in this case, does not imply that I backtrack on my statement per se, but simply that I realized one could, in an a priori logical manner, oppose to my remark the fact that western regimes may achieve similar illusions of happiness (relatively speaking) among their citizens, by their own set of techniques, and that therefore, it may be argued we're actually dealing with a similarity more than a difference. Though I do not believe it is chiefly a result of manipulation in the DPRK, but I anticipated that this is what I would get as a reply, and I do not really have enough time to engage in a long side debate about Korea.

According to your flag you live in a free society but you want to deprive your own supposed people of the rights you have. Maybe you should try and live the way ordinary Iranians have to make a living under these corrupt mullahs before you talk about taking whatever little freedom”your people” might have left. Quite hypocritical of you my friend. Mullahs and their families don’t have to follow your advice I guess!

 

[SalarHaqq]

According to your flag you live in a free society but you want to deprive your own supposed people of the rights you have. Maybe you should try and live the way ordinary Iranians have to make a living under these corrupt mullahs before you talk about taking whatever little freedom”your people” might have left. Quite hypocritical of you my friend. Mullahs and their families don’t have to follow your advice I guess!

If you imagine I'm doing anything I would not be able to do in Iran, think again, or conduct some more in depth research about the reality of present day Iran. Likewise, why do you assume that this supposedly "free" life in the west, complete with all the purported "rights" western regimes grant their subjects (a total illusion, in fact) has been satisfactory to me, on whichever level? Maybe it has, maybe not. But issuing gratuitous assumptions is not a sound way of proceeding.

 

[gambit]

I think there are methods to effectively control government employees, as well as methods to neutralize the effects of disobedience among some of them when it comes to the topic at hand.

What are they? Financial inducements? Threats of punishments? Those methods have been tried and failed. You are arguing your positions in the abstraction layers. Give policies and details.

As long as mainland China is safe and stable, the facts vindicate my assumption anyway.

No, it does not. Safety and stability can be, and have been, accomplished while living with a deluge of outside information coming in despite all efforts of the government to control access. And we are talking about prehistoric era, meaning pre-Internet. Are you going to control the telcoms as well? They are alternates to the PC. The Chinese government is struggling to control the flow of information about the flooding and failing said control.

Ah, the inevitable ad hominem. Why am I not surprised?

The reason you resort to such methods is because you realize my purely rational logic is not easy to counter. Leaving you with only two options: personal attacks and/or para-logic / sophistry.

Apart from the fact that the above essentially represents speculation, who is to say this so-called "freedom" to amass knowledge trumps actual, de facto happiness? It's an entire philosophical debate of its own. But vastly off topic. And, as said, based on speculation more than anything else. In order to shed doubt on my honesty however, much more would be required than this.

It is easy to counter by way of your refusal to say -- on record -- that you would be happy living in NKR. Currently, I work in semiconductor engineering. I have no patience for sophistry. I deal with concrete facts and real life experience. And real life experience tells us that no one, once having the taste of knowledge, want to return to ignorance.

So tell us, for the record: Would YOU be happy living in NKR?

 

[Aryzin]

If you imagine I'm doing anything I would not be able to do in Iran, think again, or conduct some more in depth research about the reality of present day Iran. Likewise, why do you assume that this supposedly "free" life in the west, complete with all the purported "rights" western regimes grant their subjects (a total illusion, in fact) has been satisfactory to me, on whichever level?

Then you should pack up and move to Islamic republic of Iran and partake in all the great deprivation they put on their people while they live in luxury. Maybe move to Afghan Taliban and start growing your beard.

 

[gambit]

If you imagine I'm doing anything I would not be able to do in Iran, think again, or conduct some more in depth research about the reality of present day Iran. Likewise, why do you assume that this supposedly "free" life in the west, complete with all the purported "rights" western regimes grant their subjects (a total illusion, in fact) has been satisfactory to me, on whichever level?

The highlighted is why calling you a hypocrite is not an insult but an accurate characterization.

Why is the burden of detailing your unhappiness falls on us? If you are unhappy with this 'free' life in the West, tell us what/why/where/how. Revolutionaries always do so before they start to do whatever they felt the need to do. They always publish their dissatisfaction. Why not you, at least on this little corner of the Internet? After all, you are advocating the virtual and physical unplugging of an entire country from the digital realm where much of the world's economies and knowledge resides. Billions of dollars and assorted currencies flows every second. Same for information from medicine to climate change to pornography.

Am willing to bet that you would deny others that which you would keep for yourself as all dictators usually do.

 

[SalarHaqq]

What are they? Financial inducements? Threats of punishments? Those methods have been tried and failed. You are arguing your positions in the abstraction layers. Give policies and details.

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.

No, it does not. Safety and stability can be, and have been, accomplished while living with a deluge of outside information coming in despite all efforts of the government to control access. And we are talking about prehistoric era, meaning pre-Internet. Are you going to control the telcoms as well? They are alternates to the PC. The Chinese government is struggling to control the flow of information about the flooding and failing said control.

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.

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.

It is easy to counter by way of your refusal to say -- on record -- that you would be happy living in NKR. Currently, I work in semiconductor engineering. I have no patience for sophistry. I deal with concrete facts and real life experience. And real life experience tells us that no one, once having the taste of knowledge, want to return to ignorance.

So tell us, for the record: Would YOU be happy living in NKR?

As explained, you're asking your interlocutor to establish far reaching conjectures on something for which he lacks the necessary information, ie you're asking me to speculate. Secondly, it makes little sense to confront someone who did not grow up in the DPRK nor spent his entire life there with these sorts of questions. Thirdly, you make unproven assumptions about the average knowledge and education levels of Koreans. Finally, what I can comment on thanks to greater amounts of research, is life in the west versus life in Iran. And here, I can state for a fact that the propaganda spread by western media represents an outright inversion of reality.

Yes, I would be happy to live in Iran. I did actually live there for a while, and might return anytime. Why I have not done so yet is due to a series of purely conjunctural and private reasons (which are none of anyone's business, this is not a bar-room talk session), but rest assured they have nothing to do with any notions of happiness or distress.

_______

Then you should pack up and move to Islamic republic of Iran and partake in all the great deprivation they put on their people while they live in luxury. Maybe move to Afghan Taliban and start growing your beard.

Kindly go away with these silly ad hominems and blind, simplistic assumptions.

 

[SalarHaqq]

The highlighted is why calling you a hypocrite is not an insult but an accurate characterization.

Why is the burden of detailing your unhappiness falls on us? If you are unhappy with this 'free' life in the West, tell us what/why/where/how. Revolutionaries always do so before they start to do whatever they felt the need to do. They always publish their dissatisfaction. Why not you, at least on this little corner of the Internet? After all, you are advocating the virtual and physical unplugging of an entire country from the digital realm where much of the world's economies and knowledge resides. Billions of dollars and assorted currencies flows every second. Same for information from medicine to climate change to pornography.

Am willing to bet that you would deny others that which you would keep for yourself as all dictators usually do.

Well, I'm obliged to repeat then, I don't come here for bar-room type of talk nor for pseudo-psychiatric polemics. Kindly do not stray from the subject matter by proposing to turn this into a discussion about personal life experiences, which in a serious social and political debate have little value other than an anecdotal one at best.

The reasons for my suggestions regarding Iran's internet architecture are obvious, and I as well as other users before me mentioned them already in this very thread. Their relevance goes way beyond any personal experiences.

 

[mohsen]

Unless you be able to understand what kind of data these sites are transferring then your solution is failed and because of encrypted nature of these communications then that portals can do nothing.
The only solution is completely cut the net or brainwash your people north Korea style to believe what mockery they provide is actually internet

Lots of countries have already implemented the thing which you call North Korean style Internet, turkey was the last one. In china, you don't even have access to real google, google has agreed to filter the content which Chinese government doesn't want. oh China has become North Korea!

 

[aryobarzan]

If a freely elected parlement in iran passes a bill to do xxxx...that is the will of majority..there will be a minority who will not like it...too bad...suck an egg ...this is called democracy and next time around try to win a parlement of your choice if you can..

 

[gambit]

Well, I'm obliged to repeat then, I don't come here for bar-room type of talk nor for pseudo-psychiatric polemics.

Kindly do not stray from the subject matter by proposing to turn this into a discussion about personal life experiences, which in a serious social and political debate have little value other than an anecdotal one at best.

By virtue of posting your idea(s) you are asking for support for them, but then if you refuse to explain your personal reasons as to why you develop those idea(s), you have no standing to ask for support for your ideas. Like it or not, people WILL expect some personal reasons, even if that expectation is silent. That is human nature. And if no explanation is forthcoming, you will be put on disregard.

The reasons for my suggestions regarding Iran's internet architecture are obvious, and I as well as other users before me mentioned them already in this very thread. They go way beyond any personal experiences.

Yes, essentially, you said that you do not like the Western style of totalitarianism, of which, the Internet is a component, therefore, countries should impose absolute controls over their countries' access to the Internet. Then you cited a 12 yrs old book that you have not read, let alone in your library, as a vague justification on why people should support your ideas. This is how hucksters got their start. And in the political realm, the consequences are %99 bloody, but not YOUR blood, of course. People like you ALWAYS make exceptions for themselves when it comes to laws they want for the people.

Ideas needs the human agency to survive and thrive. Ideas not implemented -- dies. What it also mean is that once a life have been imbued by said idea, it is natural to resist change. Resistance to the level of death have been recorded. That is why it should be obvious that people places personal experiences over thought experiments, such as 'democracy' or 'communism' or even 'Christianity'. Why should you convert from one to an alternative. It is called 'evangelism' without the religious connotation, of course. Somehow, one must convince potential converts that one's life experience correlates with theirs and to a sufficient degree that the potential converts begin to shift their positions.

Refusal to provide life experiences create doubts and here is the kicker. The worst doubt is not on the idea but on the evangelist's conviction as whether said idea have been applied. If the human agency is the best visible evidence of adoption, then 'walk the talk', is the question. At one point, the US failed to 'walk the talk' when it comes to APPLIED democratic principles -- voting rights for women. Drill down to the individual and it is no different. It is hard for Bill Gates to persuade people to live an austere monk-like life when he continues to build on his mansion.

Knowledge and the Internet are no longer considered luxuries. Notice I did not say 'Knowledge thru the Internet' but 'AND'. Show us a society where knowledge is valued but the book is rejected. It is now unassailable that knowledge and its methods of transmission are of equal importance. In fact, we would rather have an excess of methods of transmission. We want a pile of blank papers standing by the printing machine. And here you are evangelizing that the Iranian people give up both to a government runs by religious fanatics while you live in a society where no such restrictions exists.

Correlate that...

 

[SalarHaqq]

By virtue of posting your idea(s) you are asking for support for them, but then if you refuse to explain your personal reasons as to why you develop those idea(s), you have no standing to ask for support for your ideas. Like it or not, people WILL expect some personal reasons, even if that expectation is silent. That is human nature. And if no explanation is forthcoming, you will be put on disregard.

Of course there are reasons, but these do not stem from experience as much as they result from ratio and study of data. If the quoted individual will engage in philosophical considerations, they should revisit the basics of the epistemological debate. Considering the way their objection is formulated, they would certainly stand to gain from such an effort.

Yes, essentially, you said that you do not like the Western style of totalitarianism, of which, the Internet is a component, therefore, countries should impose absolute controls over their countries' access to the Internet.

Wrong. My point is that Iran needs to step up its control mechanisms of the internet not because I dislike western totalitarianism, but because this will increase Iran's security against western soft power-induced destabilization attempts.

The reference to western totalitarianism was made in the framework of a side-discussion triggered by my interlocutor's apparently depreciating mention of the DPRK.

Then you cited a 12 yrs old book that you have not read, let alone in your library, as a vague justification on why people should support your ideas.

False again. It is not a book I cited, but a concept contained and expanded upon not just in said book, but also in various articles which I have read indeed. Thence, my citation was perfectly valid. Also, this wasn't intended to form a justification for my ideas in general, but was limited to the very specific question of the comparison between western regimes and the DPRK.

Concerning my broader convictions, I have already substantiated these via extensive rational argumentation and empirical evidence, as those familiar with my past commenting are well aware of.

This is how hucksters got their start. And in the political realm, the consequences are %99 bloody, but not YOUR blood, of course. People like you ALWAYS make exceptions for themselves when it comes to laws they want for the people.

Amazing logical extrapolation. What a cognitive leap.

Ideas needs the human agency to survive and thrive. Ideas not implemented -- dies. What it also mean is that once a life have been imbued by said idea, it is natural to resist change. Resistance to the level of death have been recorded. That is why it should be obvious that people places personal experiences over thought experiments, such as 'democracy' or 'communism' or even 'Christianity'. Why should you convert from one to an alternative. It is called 'evangelism' without the religious connotation, of course. Somehow, one must convince potential converts that one's life experience correlates with theirs and to a sufficient degree that the potential converts begin to shift their positions.

Refusal to provide life experiences create doubts and here is the kicker. The worst doubt is not on the idea but on the evangelist's conviction as whether said idea have been applied. If the human agency is the best visible evidence of adoption, then 'walk the talk', is the question. At one point, the US failed to 'walk the talk' when it comes to APPLIED democratic principles -- voting rights for women. Drill down to the individual and it is no different. It is hard for Bill Gates to persuade people to live an austere monk-like life when he continues to build on his mansion.

Long-winded prevarication which dissimulates the ordinariness of its conceptual messaging through attempted delvings into the theoretical.

Simply put, I am not here for personal discussions, nor do I deem these to constitute a necessary prerequisite in a social and political debate, in line with the scholarly approach followed by social sciences. The above quoted author might want to construe my lacking interest in expounding upon off-topic biographical issues as a justification for calling into question the credibility of my demonstrations, but the bulk of my (intended) audience isn't sharing this perspective.

Knowledge and the Internet are no longer considered luxuries. Notice I did not say 'Knowledge thru the Internet' but 'AND'. Show us a society where knowledge is valued but the book is rejected. It is now unassailable that knowledge and its methods of transmission are of equal importance. In fact, we would rather have an excess of methods of transmission. We want a pile of blank papers standing by the printing machine. And here you are evangelizing that the Iranian people give up both to a government runs by religious fanatics while you live in a society where no such restrictions exists.

Catch words such as "a government run by religious fanatics" are not going to convince here. Then, I'm not sure who exactly has advocated that the Iranian people give up books and the internet... Not me, at any rate. However, for the sake of their own survival, 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.

 

[gambit]

Of course I have subjective reasons, but these do not stem from experience as much as they result from ratio and study of data.

A technocracy. I think the Soviets and the Maoist Chinese tried it. You might want to look up the consequences.

Wrong. My point is that Iran needs to step up its control mechanisms of the internet not because I dislike western totalitarianism, but because this will increase Iran's security against western soft power-induced destabilization attempts.

Actually, I do see this as a reasonable argument. Because I have seen it before. That line about history repeating itself. Back in my days, it was newspapers, periodicals, and general Western products. Essentially, anything from the West is to be regarded with suspicion precisely because the natives could be 'weakened' intellectually and vulnerable to 'soft power' from the West.

When I was active duty, I played tourist in East Berlin when that half of the city existed. I was propositioned for my Levi's 501 jeans. That is soft power, am sure you know it.

Amazing logical extrapolation. What a cognitive leap.

The true leap here is the assertion that the Iranian people will be better off under government control of access to the Internet.

Simply put, I am not here for personal discussions, nor do I deem these to constitute a necessary prerequisite in a social and political debate,...

Of which those of us steeped in applied principles of any kind have difficulties accepting.

What you are proposing is only one degree, or two at best, away from ordinary lives, down to what we can eat and drink. 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.

Catch words such as "a government run by religious fanatics" are not going to convince here.

Judging from a few responses, seems convincing enough.

Then, I'm not sure who exactly has advocated that the Iranian people give up books and the internet... Not me, at any rate.

YOU have. Indirectly.

However, for the sake of their own survival, 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.

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.

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. Whereas with a supposedly 'benevolent' dictatorship, nameless and faceless government bureaucrats and technocrats define what is 'subversive', weed them out, then spoon feed the refined products to the faithful masses. Any grimaced face upon tasting said products, authorities would hunt down the dissenter and take appropriate measures to contain 'disinformation'. All for the greater good, of course.

Iranians do not need to see your life experience to reject what you are proposing.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

So another great chinese firewall?

So how long before the iranian members here get cut off?

 

[Hack-Hook]

don't see why. All communications with the global internet will be accomplished by the one central portal. That portal has a list of authorized and blocked websites. I fail to see where the problem lies for said portal to simply transfer these data exchanged with authorized websites to national ISP's. If VPN's can do it, so can the portal.

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

 

[Hack-Hook]

The present internet is already brainwashing them sufficiently to pose an existential threat. The western imposed order is genuinely totalitarian and intentionally driving nations to collective suicide, with Iran being their worldwide target number one; the only distinctive feature of western regimes among other totalitarian systems, is their less coercive nature - on the surface, and only as long as they can have their way as is. Hence why an erudite scholar has correctly referred to the US regime as an "inverted totalitarianism". In many ways, they are far more despicable than the North Korean system.

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