6 ms·
To elaborate on the title, “silenced” means: > [YPG’s page] can’t be viewed by Facebook users inside Turkey > The page is still available on Facebook to peopl
by thih9 6y ago
To elaborate on the title, “silenced” means:
> [YPG’s page] can’t be viewed by Facebook users inside Turkey
> The page is still available on Facebook to people who view the site through U.S. internet providers.
And “enemy of Turkey”:
> Turkey considers the YPG a terrorist organization, although neither the U.S. nor Facebook do.
- pjc50 6y agoYeah, "terrorist" is kind of a floating designator. The YPG should be distinguished from the PKK in this instance. The UK takes occasional erratic action against the YPG: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/terrorism-policing-ypgypj-ally-abroad-but-danger-at-home/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/terroris...
- fishnchips 6y ago“Floating signifier” I believe is the exact scientific term. That is, if you consider semiotics a science.
- arlk 6y agoYPG is actually run by the same PKK elements, Mazloum Abdi as an example. And both are under the same KCK umbrella of far leftist Kurdish organizations; Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Turkey, Democratic Union Party (PYD under which YPG operates) in Syria, Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK) in Iran, and Kurdistan Democratic Solution Party (PÇDK) in Iraq. I'm not saying it is terrorist organization or not, but it's inconsistent to have one of these organizations on the terrorists list and others not, since they all share the same ideology, goals, and tactics.
- vbezhenar 6y agoThis is a good approach. Country must be able to control content served to their citizens. And that ruling should not be extended to other countries. Citizens can either elect different president or use VPN.
- postingawayonhn 6y agoFreedom of speech/expression is a right of every individual on this planet. Any regime that does not support that should face pushback from its citizens, businesses, and other countries.
- anovikov 6y agoWhy? If we are certain that values of free speech are important for national success, then if others suppress them, fine! It only provides us competitive advantage, let them suffer from their mistakes.
- throwaway316943 6y agoYeah, fuck em. Who cares what other countries do, let them exterminate their minorities too it just means less competition for resources. /s
- anovikov 6y agoI'd say, only option for caring about that is if we actually suspect that values of free speech and personal freedoms in general are NOT important for development: rather, those are the luxuries which we simply can afford because we're rich. And it's wise to press values onto poor countries to prevent them from becoming richer and thus a threat to us. The experiment of helping countries to become rich so they become friendly, failed on China and Russia examples: becoming rich they got only more hostile just because they could, so assumption that it's good to separate countries into friendly or hostile regardless of how is their economy going, and simply suppress growth of the latter, seems a wise one.
- vbezhenar 6y ago> Freedom of speech/expression is a right of every individual on this planet I'm not aware of any country with unlimited speech. Definitely not US or EU countries. I'm not observing huge pushback from US citizens, business and other countries when Facebook and Twitter tried to silence Trump and some other conservative leaders. There are topics that are forbidden by law to discuss in EU, for example to deny Holocaust. Those are examples of lack of freedom in so-called "free" countries. So obviously freedom of speech is not universal approach and some limitation of that freedom is an accepted norm.