Comments on: LinkedIn briefly blocks Syria, more confusion over trade/commerce regulations

By: Committee to Protect Bloggers » SourceForge Bans Syrian Users, Netizens Discuss Ban

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:31:25 +0000

[...] not general access), a decision that was quickly reversed. Web-hosting companies have also kicked off Syrian, Iranian, and other users, some of which were not actually prohibited from [...]

By: Syria: Netizens Discuss SourceForge Ban | India News Blog, Latest News From India, Latest Blogs From India

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:42:38 +0000

[...] not general access), a decision that was quickly reversed.� Web-hosting companies have also kicked off Syrian, Iranian, and other users, some of which were not actually prohibited from [...]

By: Global Voices Online » Syria: Netizens Discuss SourceForge Ban

Global Voices Online » Syria: Netizens Discuss SourceForge Ban — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:39:03 +0000

[...] not general access), a decision that was quickly reversed.� Web-hosting companies have also kicked off Syrian, Iranian, and other users, some of which were not actually prohibited from [...]

By: ted perlmutter

ted perlmutter — Thu, 07 May 2009 20:08:48 +0000

I agree with Ethan on the opacity of the Treasury Dept. restrictions. I was looking at them in 2003/2004 in relation to Iraq for a project that the Center for International Conflict Resolution was doing. Two aspects were fairly striking. First, despite the fact that Iraq was no longer run by Saddam, there were still some restrictions in place. Second, because a lot of what was in the legislation concerned intellectual as well as physical property, it was not at all clear as to what was permissable to transfer.

By: Ethan

Ethan — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:12:26 +0000

I certainly appreciated Facebook’s clarification, but wish it were reflected directly in the ToS. And I continue to be worried about what pressures Facebook or others might be facing that’s causing them to focus efforts imposing or enforcing these terms…

By: Stephanie Willerton

Stephanie Willerton — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:00:46 +0000

There was a similar controversy this week in Facebook’s new ToS many took to mean FB would be filtering embargoed countries. Groups of Iranians and others instantly sprang up to protest. FB stated that as long as users do not use FB for commercial purposes, they will not be blocked. Will be interested to hear more from your Berkman colleagues on their interpretation …

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=87617444512&h=KSFqg&u=4KH8j

By: Ethan

Ethan — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:22:57 +0000

I agree, Evgeny – there’s no evidence that Bluehost has made a major policy change, Evgeny, but they were apologetic to Kubatana and some of the other Zimbabweans. In that sense, I thought it was a succesful campaign in that outside pressure led to a policy change. But if there was no change on the Belarus, Iran and Syrian fronts, then you’re right, and it probably had more to do with US Embassy/Harare pressure than with media or blogger pressure.

By: sy

sy — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:07:05 +0000

Did you see: http://mydailyclarity.com/2009/04/3215/

By: Evgeny

Evgeny — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:54:00 +0000

“Outcry about Bluehost’s decision led the company to reconsider their policy” – are you sure about this one? As far as I know, they only offered to reinstate one or two of Kubatana’s accounts – and that was not because of the outcry but because of repeated calls from the US government agencies. As far as I know they still haven’t changed it with regards to Belarus, for example. Their TOS is still the same. I think this was one of the cases where they couldn’t care less about the outcry…

By: Cos

Cos — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:51:45 +0000

I have that same shirt. In 1996 on a trip to London, I met a guy who saw me wearing it and told me that he’d had one, had worn it on his flight from Germany, and the airport people in London (IIRC) confiscated it.