2 Harvard International Review Blog » 2008 » February

February 26, 2008

The Politics of Social Networking

Filed under: General — Zehra Hirji @ 4:56 pm

Recently, the social networking site Facebook made the move to de-list Palestine as a place on their website. On your profile page, you can no longer list Palestine, the West Bank, Gaza, The Palestinian Territories, or even the Occupied Palestinian Territories as your hometown. Jerusalem, Palestine was also removed, but Jerusalem, Israel still remains an option even though the territory is officially “disputed”.

Who gets to decide what constitutes a hometown? (Apparently Mark Zuckerberg). Although the political status of the roughly five million people who identify as Palestinian is admittedly unclear, it was at least for a time well defined enough to be listed on Facebook. So what prompted the change? There are several Facebook groups that call for the delisting of Palestine, yet there are equally as many ridiculous groups calling for the removal of Israel on the site. So why is Facebook deciding to get political?

An embarrassingly significant part of social life, especially at Harvard where social awkwardness reigns supreme, Facebook has become the ultimate tool of self-expression. Too shy to call that girl you randomly hooked up with last night? Freakishly poke her on Facebook instead! Were you a real nerd in high school? Hype yourself up with some trendy flicks and emo quotes. Or change your name altogether! With opportunities to share your political candidate of choice and your opinions on specific debates all the way to expressing “Which Disney Princess Am I” and “What drug do I represent?” Facebook allowed for it all. Applications in general merely expanded a person’s ability to further express themselves, and are unrestricted because private companies produce them. The Facebook platform itself has provided countless opportunities for members to share what they wish and hide what they prefer (although life isn’t complete until you have had one mortifying photo posted of you after an interesting night, which for some reason will not disappear no matter how many times you un-tag yourself) so why suddenly censor your hometown? The irony is that outside sources are unrestricted in producing all types of applications for Facebook, but the original platform is now restricting hometowns. It’s hard to construe that this move could be anything but political considering the severe implications of no longer having Palestine be a hometown.

When a trivial social tool like Facebook decides to quietly go political it is something the users ought to be alarmed of regardless of their political status. Naturally, Facebook didn’t announce the switch and I am sure that most people did not even notice it, but for the hundreds or thousands who no longer have a hometown according to Facebook’s standards there is a cause for serious concern. Have our social lives (or let’s be honest, lack thereof) become so significant to the political realm that Zuckerberg felt the need to illustrate his views? Is it fair that we are now restricted because of his beliefs?

To be fair, there are restrictions on Facebook for issues such as nudity and pornography (note: DO NOT post photos from Primal Scream) and other things relating to safety, but being able to restrict your hometown seems ludicrous and hardly within the same category. Perhaps Facebook never intended to get political, but with this issue they have certainly inserted themselves into one of the most highly contentious debates of our time. So what’s up Zuckerberg? A billion dollars and you are suddenly too cool to remember your old awkward Harvard days? At the end of the day, Facebook is just the silly little networking site that runs our lives and prevents us from getting decent grades, but it’s the principle of the issue that matters and I want my “hometown” back!

February 22, 2008

Arab Censorship in the Modern Age

Filed under: Democratization, Human Rights, Middle East, Technology — Owen Barron @ 4:56 pm

If you care at all about democracy ever emerging in the Arab world, the recent decision by the Arab League to allow closer government oversight of satellite media should worry you. It shouldn’t surprise you—after all, Arab governments are famous for censorship, disrespect for journalists, and police brutality. But the language of the new League charter, agreed upon almost unanimously, is chilling to those of us in the West who’ve grown to cherish our freedom of the press.

From the BBC:

The document calls on stations “not to offend the leaders or national and religious symbols” of Arab countries, news agency AFP reports.
They should not “damage social harmony, national unity, public order or traditional values,” the charter says.

The regulations affect satellite broadcasters, such as Al Jazeera, which have angered governments in the past with scathing criticisms of authoritarianism and corruption. These broadcasters hadn’t been immune to repression—an Al Jazeera journalist was sentenced to six months in prison after the government accused her of “fabricating” torture videotapes for use in a documentary. But the new regulations expand the scope of regulation frighteningly. Notably, Qatar—which is home to Al Jazeera itself, and which sponsors the station—refused to sign the charter.

What’s important to realize, though, is that satellite media is no longer the most controversial medium for Arab and Middle Eastern journalists. That distinction is now firmly held by the countless Middle Eastern blogs that have proliferated over the past few years. They’ve posted rants against their government, the US, the Zionists, and so on. They’ve posted cell-phone videos of police brutality—and gotten themselves arrested as a result. The crackdown on the Internet in the Arab world began belatedly, and can never be quite effective. Paradoxically, the attempts by governments to spur development by offering free or subsidized Internet access—such as in Egypt—inevitably leads to the sort of political activism that governments try to prohibit. In Iran, whose censors vigilantly monitor the print media, blogs have exploded. No authoritarian government can effectively police the Internet; even in China, which maintains its Great Firewall, the most die-hard bloggers consistently find ways to evade the censors.

So the Arab League is cracking down on satellite TV. That’s terrible, but it’s hardly going to stop the massive upsurge in activism and political expression coming from the new media. The Internet will not be constrained. And all of us should be thankful for that here.

February 20, 2008

Party’s Over

Filed under: Middle East — Zehra Hirji @ 4:27 pm

Beirut, once known as the “Paris of the Middle East,” famous for its raging nightlife has been recently seeing a dramatic decrease in the people venturing to go out for a good time. The bustling streets once packed with luxury cars late into the night are now quiet and most club and bar owners have been forced to close their doors permanently due to a lack of business.

Its seems almost comical that Lebanon’s nightlife scene was able to survive a civil war, a military occupation, and radical religious fury among other things, but is now shutting down due to the present political strife within the nation. It seems as though the only ones able to shut the party down in Lebanon are the Lebanese. The contention over elections or lack thereof, have left minority groups and political parties in severe conflict with violence erupting at almost any moment.

Young people from all over the Arab world once poured into Lebanon for lavish vacations and their vibrant party scene. In many ways this contradicted the closed traditional society of the Arab world as perceived by most Westerners. While it is true this luxury was somewhat reserved for the elite, it was an intermingling of young Arabs that was hardly seen elsewhere. Yes, the bustling city of Cairo emerged on the scene in an attempt to compete, but the surmounting religious fervor and movement towards a relatively more religiously conservative society left Cairo far in the dark when compared to Lebanon’s nightlife. But alas this is no more… I suppose the fear of death is enough to kill anyone’s buzz.

February 10, 2008

Standardize It

Filed under: Economics, Europe — Zachary Sniderman @ 4:27 pm

The UK currency reform is entering a relatively bizarre debate. Although no measures have been passed to shift the uniquely English pound to the trade-conducive euro, the debate seems to be less along economic lines than social ones. The argument to shift from the pound to the euro is based on economic standardization: countries that use the same currency will have improved and increased trade. This ‘theory’ has already proven beneficial in the countries that have embraced the standard euro. With more plausible trading opportunities, economies are able to mutually benefit. The counter-argument from the English side is “if it ain’t broke, why fix it.” The pound is one of the strongest currencies in the international market (about 2x the USD), and trade into and out of England certainly isn’t going through any type of majour slump. So why the pressure to standardize? The shift from the pound to the euro would not only mark an economic shift, but a social shift in values. English currency reform would stand as an announcement that England was entering a global marketplace. It would symbolize an attitude of inclusiveness rather than the characteristically (and perhaps stereotypically) reserved inner-mindedness of the English. However, this sign of ‘global interconnectedness’ comes at a social price. There is a sense of pride instilled by having the most amount of marbles in the schoolyard, and albeit a childish analogy, the pound acts in a similar way. The sense of national pride in having a strong currency is reflected in America’s own anxiety at the now-comparable strength of the Canadian dollar (floating around parity with the USD). Standardizing the pound to the euro is economically viable, but socially difficult. Unity comes at the price of some pride.

February 7, 2008

Listening In

Filed under: Defense/Military, Europe, National Politics, Terrorism — Dominique Gracia @ 9:34 pm

Wire-tapping, that memorably scandalous activity, is making headlines again in the UK. MP Sadiq Khan reportedly had a conversation with an incarcerated constituent recorded by counter-terrorism officers: a decision taken by the police force, unbeknownst to MPs, and without either of the participants’ consent. Now, an investigation has been begun by the Justice Minister, Jack Straw, and he’s made it very clear that the decision to instigate such an investigation is made by a police chief, not a minister. PM Gordon Brown’s claims, contrary to prior PM’s decisions, that evidence obtained via wire-tapping should be used in court, particularly against terrorism suspects, undermines this message, however. Wire-tapping is political. It’s the next step in Britain’s more stringent police powers against terrorist subjects in our milder version of The War On Terror. And the investigation into the Khan tapping case is a clear sign of that. Former PM’s have ruled out using wire-tap evidence in court because of concern about revealing police and secret service techniques. And that’s just what’s being highlighted here. Who’s doing what and with who’s permission? Effectively: What can we admit in court? Let’s make sure we’re doing things by the book because when we want to use this stuff, we better be able to. The “simpler and stronger surveillance laws” called for by Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti are going to work so well with Brown’s new plans. The veto power of the secret service – the right to refuse to admit tapes into court – seems to imply that that sort of evidence will be used only in the cases where it’s the only evidence. Trying to fast-track suspects to convicts is a worrying trend when we’re also trying to increase the amount of time we can imprison suspects without releasing or charging them.