| Bookmark this post: | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Add a Comment
Again, was JB and other aggregators (sawtona and dwwenn) subjected to external pressure (internal spying devices) to remove blogs that tried to bring attention to the prominent issue of the autocracy of the royal regime in Jordan. THAT IS THE MAIN qestion.
from Canada
said:Hi Batir,
Can you help me spread the word.
http://7aki-fadi.blogspot.com/2007/02/nominate-best-five-jordanians.html
from Jordan
said:yes, these two blogs if left unmonitored will lead to the downfall of the monarchy. the conspiracy was massive.
batir: <a href="http://www.black-iris.com/2007/02/15/jordan-blogs-censorship-tasty-solutions/">my solutions</a> were better...at least they included the possibility of ice cream
Well stated, Batir. I would like the ice cream part, too,though. :D
Well stated, Batir. I would like the ice cream part, too,though. :D
Nas,
Dont tell me, tell the idiots who thought that the monarchy is so insecure and ragile that two insignificants webpages are considered a threat
I think even the owner of the agreagtor offers public service ,he still has the right to control the quality of the input in the site. Of course unjustified campaign is not accepted at all. Maybe as you said Batir voting to take the decision of removing would be a good idea.
from United States
said:You know what the real problem is? That most, not all, Jordanian bloggers equate "Jordan Blogs" with the "Jordanian blogosphere". It was the same with "Jordan Planet". People would use the term "Jordanian blogosphere" and link to Jordan Planet, when in fact, other Jordanian based blogging services contained many more blogs than JP or JB.
The conflict you speak of is between three private parties actually: two blogs, and a privately managed blog aggregator. This blog aggregator is not a public service; it's someone's private project that is made accessible to everyone on the internet. Neither you nor I can tell a guy what to do with their web site. We can only suggest things to them and we can do that in private letters.
Even though I agree using a post on one's blog about the subject could be very effective, I think one post about this subject would have been enough. But for multiple blogs to start talking about this issue multiple times and to start invoking slogans of "free speech" and what have you is a little too much for what this case is worth.
I think this overreaction is natural in our societies, because we are a people who are obsessed with finding democracy and freedom of expression, so we try to shove it down the throat of everyone, even those who have absolutely no obligation to honor it.
People, if you don't like the way an aggregator is run, you are free to build another that is better and that would render the bad one obsolete. But just because governments are obligated to uphold freedom of expression for their citizens doesn't mean that someone providing a free service on his privately owned web site has to under law. At least that's what I know is the case and believe is true.
from Jordan
said:Thanks guys for the response and comment.
hamede: I agree with you.
Hashmi: Again I think if the GID have any problem with the blogs they will contact the blogger and not the aggregator since the blogger himslef is the creatorof the content.
Nas: ice cream is not good for someone sick with flu. Can you change it to Mochachino? On my treat.
Kinzi; you are invited as well, we will be privilaged with your presence.
Cute Mona: cute forum. I will check it now.
Red rose: I agree with you and it is good that Khaled and the committee are back on track.
Hamzeh: this is a normal tendency to discuss a topic that we sometimes need a case study to focus about. No harm with multiple posts and blogs.
Add a Comment
<<Home














from United States
Khaled did a good job,thank you khaled.
(unjustified campaign)my stand with the guys based on if you want to call something with the name jordan it have to include evry one,or call it by your name,i am not mad at any one this is my opinion,call that unjustified campaign is unacceptable.