3 ms·

This article is painfully shortsighted about Egypt's moment in the Arab Spring. (1) the problematic Vodafone message in question is presented as "without attri

by midtake 2mo ago

This article is painfully shortsighted about Egypt's moment in the Arab Spring. (1) the problematic Vodafone message in question is presented as "without attribution" but it very clearly starts with the words "The Armed Forces asks"! (2) it makes it seem like the government was naturally unpopular in Egypt and clinging on to power in desperate ways when in reality the online anti-state dissent turned out to be astroturfed by "shadowy" Western organizations, which ironically ended up being the Islamic Brotherhood's ace up their sleeve as their justification for taking control. So basically, wtf is his point regarding the Arab Spring? The author sounds painfully naive like it's still 2011, this sort of deliberate naivete makes it difficult for me to trust the rest of the article.

edent 2mo ago
The author (hello) doesn't really have an opinion about Egypt and the situation in 2011. Regarding attribution. As you can see from the linked images, the messages all have the sender "Vodafone". While they may genuinely be from the armed forces, the reader has no way to verify that. If you received a message saying "The armed forces requires you to pet a cat today" would you immediately believe it was from the army? Regarding the government's unpopularity. I think you might be inferring something I didn't imply. All I've done is link to contemporary news stories and quote from press releases. I haven't expressed any thoughts on the situation at the time, because I wasn't there and am not a scholar of modern Egypt. The point isn't about the Arab Spring per se - it is used as an example of when a network was forced to send messages to their subscribers. Regardless of whether the Government was right to do so, I think we can both agree that compelling speech through violence is not an ideal scenario.
enoint 2mo ago
I think it helps that the author was not a party to it. Those daily aphorisms are a canary indicating Vodafone is under occupation. One day, that canary changes. Maybe for good, maybe not.

by midtake 2mo ago

edent 2mo ago

The author (hello) doesn't really have an opinion about Egypt and the situation in 2011. Regarding attribution. As you can see from the linked images, the messages all have the sender "Vodafone". While they may genuinely be from the armed forces, the reader has no way to verify that. If you received a message saying "The armed forces requires you to pet a cat today" would you immediately believe it was from the army? Regarding the government's unpopularity. I think you might be inferring something I didn't imply. All I've done is link to contemporary news stories and quote from press releases. I haven't expressed any thoughts on the situation at the time, because I wasn't there and am not a scholar of modern Egypt. The point isn't about the Arab Spring per se - it is used as an example of when a network was forced to send messages to their subscribers. Regardless of whether the Government was right to do so, I think we can both agree that compelling speech through violence is not an ideal scenario.

enoint 2mo ago

I think it helps that the author was not a party to it. Those daily aphorisms are a canary indicating Vodafone is under occupation. One day, that canary changes. Maybe for good, maybe not.