
Snap blocks Al Jazeera in Saudi Arabia to “comply with local laws” - JumpCrisscross
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/18/snap-blocks-al-jazeera-in-saudi-arabia-to-comply-with-local-laws/
======
crispyambulance
I don't understand what Snap gets out of this.

Is it really worth it for them to be dismissed by the free-world as a
totalitarian sycophant in exchange for whatever drop-in-the-bucket marketshare
they get from Saudi Arabia?

What does it mean to not comply with local laws in Saudi Arabia? A ban for
Snapchat in that country? BFD!

~~~
zeroxfe
Usually this means that local Snap employees (if any) are put at risk. In
countries like Saudi Arabia, it almost certainly is jail-time in very brutal
facilities.

(I don't know if they actually have employees there, but in general, this is a
huge risk for many international corporations.)

~~~
greendude29
> In countries like Saudi Arabia, it almost certainly is jail-time in very
> brutal facilities.

Doesn't sound accurate at all. Please cite or present data.

~~~
KekDemaga
Here is amnesty international's account of one such prison:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%60Ulaysha_Prison#Conditions...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%60Ulaysha_Prison#Conditions_of_detention)

------
rb808
The new world of global TV channels, online media, fake news, international
firewalls and propaganda from different countries is really interesting and
difficult for me to to decide what is best. eg are RT, AlJazeera provide a
different point of view tinged with a little state propaganda a good thing. I
like diversity of news, but can see bizarre conspiracy theories given oxygen.
Should the government manipulate the media to keep peace in a country? Eg the
Chinese way isn't necessarily bad. Watching US news channels its clear they
are often highly biased too. Maybe news really is a third facts, a third
opinion and a touch of cultural viewpoints, propaganda and cultural
straightjacketing. I thought I knew what was best but now I dont know.

------
tryingagainbro
Maybe a deal on buying Snap shares is behind this? Just a guess

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are in a huge diplomatic fight right now with embargoes
and lots of tricks to influence powers (like buying airplanes, arms etc from
USA, EU...)

------
Zaheer
In related news 'Israel moves to close Al Jazeera, ban its journalists':

[http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/israel-seeks-close-
al-...](http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/israel-seeks-close-al-jazeera-
ban-journalists-170806130215616.html)

------
danjoc
Of all the thing I would expect the Saudi's to ask Snap to block, Al Jazeera
seems pretty far down the list behind nudity. Is nudity effectively blocked on
Snap there?

~~~
planteen
There's a diplomatic crisis between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Al Jazeera is from
Qatar.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Qatar_diplomatic_crisis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Qatar_diplomatic_crisis)

~~~
danjoc
My question isn't why they blocked Al Jazeera. Why doesn't Saudi Arabia block
Snap? Snap has a reputation as a nude pictures app. Saudi Arabians are
offended by too much ankle showing under the burka. It seems like Snap should
be blocked entirely in Saudi Arabia. The punishment for sending nude pictures
in that country is severe. This is a country that beheaded 157 people in 2015.

Why would they allow Snap in their country in the first place? A quick search
turns up this:

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/09/snapchat_saudi_gover...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/09/snapchat_saudi_government/)

That seems to answer my question. Snap is a Saudi monitoring platform. It
seems only natural they would use their influence to shape opinions by
removing Al Jazeera. Sorta like how Facebook removes "fake news" from their
site for the US deep state.

~~~
nemothekid
1\. " _Snap has a reputation as a nude pictures app._ " is about as relevant
as WhatsApp being a reputation for a nude pictures app. That legacy is years
old, especially now as Stories is a larger part of Snap's reputation and
because Snap has been removing larger pornographic accounts.

2\. " _Why doesn 't Saudi Arabia block Snap?_" It really seems like you
haven't been up to date on what Snapchat is. Snap is a huge social network,
and I'd imagine someone is fighting to keep Snapchat so that they can still
post their stories about their 20 lamborghinis they bought this morning.
Again, blocking Snapchat would be like blocking instagram.

3\. The real reason Al Jareeza is being blocked is political. Nudity isn't a
"real" issue, much like you can certainly find Saudi princes allegedly
drinking alcohol. Al Jareeza is a real thing royalty is cautious of, nudity is
not.

~~~
danjoc
1\. So that's what you tell your parents? Every snap thread I've ever seen is
soliciting nudes found on snap or soliciting usernames to solicit nudes.

3\. I don't think we're talking about the same Saudi Arabia. Just talking
about sex will earn you 5 years and 1000 lashes.

~~~
ahakki
What you are describing is the way it is for the Saudi proletariat. These
people don‘t use Snapchat. The rich do and their lives are completly different
from what you describe.

------
randyrand
In America there is discussion that "hate speech" news sites would also be
blocked under local law.

Two different sides of the same coin.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
You seem to be advocating that all speech should be permitted, and that
anything less is unacceptable. I disagree.

I believe there's a gray, ambiguous spectrum of acceptability, and that
somewhere down the line there are opinions which incite (or consist in)
violence, which inspire malice, and which are overtly harmful. A line between
"disgusting, but acceptable" and "reprehensible" can carefully be drawn to not
permit these terrible ideas to be promulgated.

I agree that we should be cautious that this line does not creep into
acceptable speech, and that the mechanisms used to enact these decisions are
not re-purposed inappropriately. I understand that technology makes speech
cheap, and suppression of speech difficult, and that encryption algorithms and
other mathematical constructs make no distinction between acceptable and
unacceptable speech. But these opinions do not need to be tolerated within
society.

~~~
eighthnate
> I believe there's a gray, ambiguous spectrum of acceptability, and that
> somewhere down the line there are opinions which incite (or consist in)
> violence, which inspire malice, and which are overtly harmful.

That's the reason why we have free speech rights ( in america at least ). So
that people can't use and exploit the "gray" as an excuse to censor everyone.

> A line between "disgusting, but acceptable" and "reprehensible" can
> carefully be drawn to not permit these terrible ideas to be promulgated.

If the ideas are terrible, they should be promulgated and shown for all to
see.

> I understand that technology makes speech cheap, and suppression of speech
> difficult

Actually, technology makes suppression of speech easy.

> But these opinions do not need to be tolerated within society.

Which opinions?

You make generalizations and don't speak of any specifics? And who gets to
decide which speech shouldn't be tolerated?

~~~
Larrikin
Arguing over whether black people should be enslaved or Jews should be gassed
aren't political arguments with sound reasons on both sides. Treating them
like they are sends you directly in the paradox of tolerance.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)

~~~
int_19h
The paradox of tolerance is not about tolerating hate speech. It's about
tolerating violent actions.

If you tolerate hate speech, there's no paradox: you can do so, without
surrendering the protection against intolerance for those members that speech
targets.

~~~
grzm
> _The paradox of tolerance is not about tolerating hate speech. It 's about
> tolerating violent actions._

While I can understand the motivation to interpret it this way, it seems
directly counter to Popper:

> _In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always
> suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter
> them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion,
> suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to
> suppress them if necessary even by force…_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Discussio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Discussions)

~~~
int_19h
Yes, I'm aware of Popper's argument, and I dispute it. In fact, the very
fuzziness of that quote you cited is a good example. What does "we can keep
them in check" means? One would assume that it applies so long as adherents of
that ideology don't hold any prominent political power - i.e. when they can
move on from speech to actions.

The rest of that quote does mesh well with my take on this: "Unlimited
tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited
tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a
tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant
will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not
imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of
intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument
and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be
unwise".

(Indeed, as Popper himself notes, this is a very straightforward reformulation
of the paradox of freedom, whereby you need to suppress the _actions_ of some
people that are aimed at reducing the freedom of other people - so you need to
reduce freedom for some to maximize freedom for all.)

Another way to approach it is via definitions. Tolerating something means
putting up with it. Tolerance is generally deemed to be different from
acceptance - to tolerate something means not trying to persecute it or
otherwise stamp it out by violence, whereas acceptance is to acknowledge
something as proper. But from there follows that intolerance is an _action_ \-
merely holding some opinion, or even letting it known that you do, is not per
se intolerance. "I will not tolerate X" implies that you're willing to _act_
to prevent X from happening. If and when you do, the paradox of tolerance
kicks in - people who want to maximize tolerance, have to act themselves, to
restrict your acts - thereby being intolerant towards your intolerance. But if
you don't act, suppressing your freedom of conscience or of expression is
intolerance of dissenting opinion, not intolerance of intolerance.

