back to article Turkey PM bans Twitter, YouTube as 'tools of terrorist propaganda'

Twitter and Google's YouTube faced another showdown with the Turkish government on Monday after court officials in the country temporarily blocked access to the micro-blabbing and video-sharing sites. The latest ban was imposed on the US companies following the death of prosecutor Mehmet Selim Kiraz, who was taken hostage and …

  1. Vimes

    I wonder what this sort of course of action by the government has done to the level of VPN usage within Turkey?

    Rather unsurprisingly this sort of thing has started appearing:

    https://twitter.com/veorq/status/585314785606131713

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    EU...

    I don't think Turkey got any plans to become a member of EU. At least not this government.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Turkey holding hands with America.

    Seems like the Turks are just copying the Americans who also like to do the same thing... they might not ask for Youtube to be shut down but they definately request a lot of content removal... which in the end results in the same goal... ( Were talking about the governement here, not institutions/companies or the public at large)

    http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/

    1. Test Man

      Re: Turkey holding hands with America.

      So, nothing like the Americans then.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Turkey holding hands with America.

        So what's the difference ?

        1. Tom Maddox Silver badge
          Headmaster

          Re: Turkey holding hands with America.

          "So what's the difference ?"

          It's the same as the difference between asking you to stop conflating dissimilar things and slapping a piece of duct tape over your mouth.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Turkey holding hands with America.

          Oh I see, you can comment as you please but I have to remain quiet. Are you American or just pro-gagging.

          So if the American government asks for politically difficult subjects to be removed how would that differ from Turkies request to remove politically difficult subjects ?

          Try doing a Google for search for "American government remove political videos" and let me know how different things are....?

          Or do you believe that the Americans only remove videos featuruing breasts in order to save the bible bashers from hurting their eyes.

          1. Tom Maddox Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Turkey holding hands with America.

            "Oh I see, you can comment as you please but I have to remain quiet."

            I'm sorry, I thought there was an actual discussion taking place, but I see that you're actually trolling. Well played, then; I'm out. Get your fodder elsewhere.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Turkey holding hands with America.

              @Tom Maddox,

              Please re-read your own comment and then decide who the Troll is ! If that's what you call a discussion, then you still have some trolling schooling to finish.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    So....

    is this the same Turkish PM that has authorized lethal force against protesters that cover their faces?

    It's a battle between Thailand and Turkey which tourist destination can have the biggest assholes in charge.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So....

      "is this the same Turkish PM that has authorized lethal force against protesters that cover their faces?"

      If you're demonstrating peacefully and not breaking the law you have no reason to cover your face. Ok, in turkey perhaps that rule doesn't apply, but in the west people who cover their faces at demos usually have trouble in mind.

      1. Amorous Cowherder
        Facepalm

        Re: So....

        If I wish to walk around with a balaclava on during the winter months, do I have something to hide? Am I about to cause trouble? Or is that I don't want a cold head and also you've become one of those people who's become so damned paranoid by way of a moronic media that truly believes in the mantra, "nothing to hide, nothing to fear"?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So....

          "If I wish to walk around with a balaclava on during the winter months, do I have something to hide?"

          Probably. I haven't seen anyone wear a balaclava due to the weather for decades and unless you live way north of the artic circle or are at Amundson base in antartica I can't see any reason to wear one.

          "Or is that I don't want a cold head and also you've become one of those people who's become so damned paranoid by way of a moronic media"

          No, just observation. Oddly enough the morons chucking stones and other crap at demos always have their faces covered. Isn't that strange? Perhaps you're one of them.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: So....

            I agree actually, those covering their faces in the west are clearly out to cause trouble and deserve everything they get.

            http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/rt_G20_Protests_090402_ssh.jpg

            http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/25/article-0-15343F87000005DC-416_634x418.jpg

            https://www.wodumedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/A-demonstrator-scuffles-with-police-during-protests-outside-the-Bank-of-England-in-London-April-1-2009.-Riot-police-staged-baton-charges-to-try-to-disperse-several-hundred-protesters-gathered-around-the-Bank-of-England-in-the-hea.jpg

      2. NumptyScrub

        Re: So....

        If you're demonstrating peacefully and not breaking the law you have no reason to cover your face.

        I haven't seen anyone wear a balaclava due to the weather for decades and unless you live way north of the artic circle or are at Amundson base in antartica I can't see any reason to wear one.

        I wear a balaclava, underneath my motorcycle helmet, every time I get on the bike, because here in the UK 70mph can get pretty fucking cold, even in summer (I have a silk one for summer, and a "windproof" thermal one for winter). Does that refute your premise sufficiently? Do a google search for "motorcycle balaclava", this is a big enough thing to be a product range in its own right ;)

        Regarding the blatant "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" assertion of yours, then I can't summon up the energy to write a proper rebuttal. Suffice to say that this inevitably gets trotted out by people who think they have nothing to fear, until you point out that they e.g. habitually exceed speed limits, drive the morning after (while still potentially over the limit), watch / listen to copyrighted material that they do not have the rights to, and various other offenses (civil and/or criminal). Everyone who I have had this conversation with IRL has at least 3 habitual offenses they commit either without thinking, or (in most cases) actively commit "because it's not a real crime" (aka the "everyone does that so it doesn't count" defense).

        On a scale of Right to Wrong, wearing clothing at a protest doesn't even come close.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So....

          "Regarding the blatant "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" assertion of yours, then I can't summon up the energy to write a proper rebuttal"

          Can you cut and paste where I asserted that? No, didn't think so. If you're going to lie try not to make it quite so easy to disprove.

          If you think its fine to cover your face in a public place without issue in every situation then try and walk into a bank with your lid on and see how far you get.

          "On a scale of Right to Wrong, wearing clothing at a protest doesn't even come close."

          Your naivety is breathteaking. But frankly unsurprising on this site.

          1. NumptyScrub

            Re: So....

            Can you cut and paste where I asserted that? No, didn't think so. If you're going to lie try not to make it quite so easy to disprove.

            Here you go:

            "If you're demonstrating peacefully and not breaking the law you have no reason to cover your face."

            Your actual copy/pasted quote there is essentially paraphrasing "If you have nothing to fear, then you have no reason to hide"; it's the classic logical complement of the actual "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" statement. I though it was an obvious parallel, but I'll accept that I might be the only person who would make that jump.

            If you think its fine to cover your face in a public place without issue in every situation then try and walk into a bank with your lid on and see how far you get.

            To quote you back at yourself, could you confirm where I asserted that? I simply pointed out a set of situations (I am not the only motorcyclist in the UK, so it will be a set, not a single one) where wearing a balaclava is completely socially acceptable, considered a valid reason to wear one, and happens regularly.

            On a lighter note, I actually have walked into a high street bank wearing my motorcycle helmet; this particular one is a full-face opener, and the face part was flipped up, revealing the rather large face hole in the balaclava (the motorcycle ones, or at least the ones I own, aren't your classic film ninja-eye-slit headgear, the face holes are about the size of a face). It was completely possible for me to both keep my helmet and balaclava on, and reveal almost my entire face while talking to the bank staff. I've done exactly the same thing when paying for petrol and the cashiers had no problem with it either. Point that I never actually said validated anyway, I guess?

            "On a scale of Right to Wrong, wearing clothing at a protest doesn't even come close."

            Your naivety is breathteaking. But frankly unsurprising on this site.

            Naïve? Naïveté would be in thinking that everyone who turns up to a protest wearing a mask is automatically a violent criminal.

            In your own words, "If you're demonstrating peacefully and not breaking the law you have no reason to cover your face. Ok, in turkey perhaps that rule doesn't apply, but in the west people who cover their faces at demos usually have trouble in mind."

            People at Anonymous rallies wear masks to cover their faces, and the vast majority intend nothing more than peaceful protest. It's a basic, low-effort refutation, but would still appear to be a valid refutation nonetheless. Have I missed something?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: So....

              "Your actual copy/pasted quote there is essentially paraphrasing "If you have nothing to fear, then you have no reason to hide""

              No it isn't actually. It means if you have no intention of causing trouble then you have no reason to cover up. Why would they be fearful unless they knew they were going to do something wrong?

              "Naïveté would be in thinking that everyone who turns up to a protest wearing a mask is automatically a violent criminal."

              Not automatically but the potential is there to cause trouble if they can't be identified. Give me a good reason why in a western democracy someone would cover their face at a protest.

              "People at Anonymous rallies"

              Silly little kids wearing masks from a film doesn't count as a serious protest.

              1. NumptyScrub

                Re: So....

                No it isn't actually. It means if you have no intention of causing trouble then you have no reason to cover up. Why would they be fearful unless they knew they were going to do something wrong?

                Please re-read what I've just quoted there, and tell me if it sounds an awful lot like the stereotypical "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument. Protip: it does, because you are basically using the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument.

                Is your issue with me calling it that simply one of syntatical pedantry? Would you prefer I called it the "nothing to fear, no reason to hide" argument instead so it exactly matches the syntax of your assertions? I can do that if you like.

                Not automatically but the potential is there to cause trouble if they can't be identified. Give me a good reason why in a western democracy someone would cover their face at a protest.

                You are basically arguing that the act of wearing a mask in public shows direct criminal intent; tell that to the gaggle of kids outside my door at Halloween wearing various spooky costumes, or the clueless Anonymous nubbins at one of their rallies. Citation: your second sentence I quoted at the start of this reply; "It means if you have no intention of causing trouble then you have no reason to cover up." 4 masked individuals (plus parent or guardian) stood outside my door demanding sweets with menaces; is that really direct, criminal intent?

                If kids can do it for fun, then adults can do it for fun. Those numbnuts in Anonymous rallies are doing it for fun. So to answer your request for "a good reason" to cover your face in public: for fun.

                Silly little kids wearing masks from a film doesn't count as a serious protest.

                a) any organised protest gathering that gets several thousand people together is by definition pretty serious, even if you think all the people that turn up are dicks

                b) several thousand masked protesters that do not go on to commit criminal acts is evidence which directly rebukes your premise that anyone in the West who covers their face is intending to cause trouble.

                Wearing a mask in public is not a criminal act, nor is it a guaranteed precursor to a criminal act, and there is more than one "good reason" to do so (Halloween, fancy dress, the Great Gorilla Run, just for the giggles). Correlation is not causation; wearing a mask in public does not make you a criminal, being a criminal makes you a criminal and wearing a mask is irrelevant.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: So....

                  "You are basically arguing that the act of wearing a mask in public shows direct criminal intent; tell that to the gaggle of kids outside my door at Halloween wearing various spooky costumes, "

                  So you don't think circumstances make a difference? Is the guy holding shotgun at a bank teller no different to the clay pigeon shooter? Don't be a twat.

                  " wearing a mask in public does not make you a criminal,"

                  No, but wearing a mask in public at a demonstration is probably a good indication you might have intent to do something wrong or you don't want to police to know its you there. Why would someone who has nothing to hide bother?

                  As for nothing to hide, nothing to fear which you love to keep quoting - that applies to private spaces , NOT public.

                  1. NumptyScrub

                    Re: So....

                    So you don't think circumstances make a difference? Is the guy holding shotgun at a bank teller no different to the clay pigeon shooter? Don't be a twat.

                    Compare one 5-year old in a Batman costume standing at my door demanding sweets with menaces, with one of those Anonymous chucklefucks spending 3 hours holding a placard (while wearing a mask) and then going home. Do circumstances make a difference? Nope, they both completely legally wore a mask in public and committed no crime.

                    No, but wearing a mask in public at a demonstration is probably a good indication you might have intent to do something wrong or you don't want to police to know its you there. Why would someone who has nothing to hide bother?

                    Utter bullshit and literally a specific logical fallacy (fyi in this case P is "is a criminal" and Q is "wearing a mask"); as well as being trivial enough to refute using actual events. "Criminal" and "wearing a mask" are not commutative, and they are not causal, and I challenge you to provide logical proof of your statement.

                    Wearing a mask in public simply means you are wearing a mask in public. If you seriously believe that anyone who chooses to wear a mask (or balaclava, or hoodie) in public is "probably" a criminal then petition your MP to make balaclavas illegal, because until that point (where the mere act of wearing one is itself a crime) your argument is as leaky as a colander.

                    ISIS are terrorists, and ISIS are Muslim. If you can see why equating "Terrorist" and "Muslim" is a bad thing, I'm hoping you can see why equating balaclavas and rioters is just as bad. Lots of people wear balaclavas, but only a tiny percentage are rioters, and tarring us all with the same brush is really fucking annoying (not to mention bigoted as fuck).

      3. Graham Marsden
        Facepalm

        @boltar - Re: So....

        People who are up to no good in their homes such as domestic abusers and child molesters do so with the curtains pulled.

        Do you pull your curtains? Why? What have you got to hide???

        1. Intractable Potsherd

          Re: @boltar - So....

          And the obligatory reference to dihydrogen monoxide - "all criminals drink water. You drink water. You are criminal".

          Silly argument, boltar.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @boltar - So....

          "Do you pull your curtains? Why? What have you got to hide???"

          So public demonstrations are in private property are they? Sorry, your analogy doesn't really work.

        3. x 7

          Re: @boltar - So....

          If I'm shagging someone over the kitchen table I sometimes draw the curtains. It depends on where she lies on the fugly scale, and whether I want the neighbours to be impressed. Or not.

    2. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Re: So....

      It's a battle between Thailand and Turkey which tourist destination can have the biggest assholes in charge.

      I think they're vying for second.. we in America have that one wrapped up.

  5. jonfr

    Google video ads

    I've been getting annoying Google Adsense video ads that auto-play with sound in this article. I want to know if anyone else has been getting this also.

    As for Turkey, there chance of getting EU membership any time soon are now far, far away and the distance is increasing at the moment. This blocks are against EU law and values (far as I know).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Google video ads

      "This blocks are against EU law and values (far as I know)."

      The EU were quite happy to ignore their own financial rules to allow Greece into the club so I see no reason that any other rules should be sacrosant. Brussells makes it up as it goes along.

    2. MrXavia

      Re: Google video ads

      I wonder if Turkey would approve 100 lashes to anyone that creates auto-play video adverts..

  6. Lallabalalla

    I totally agree with this

    If youtube and twitter can't abide by their own policies they should be shut down. Allowing themselves to be used to broadcast ransom demands and beheadings, and to be the media outlet of choice by terrorist organisations, they should be ashamed of themselves.

    Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to blackmail, kidnap and murder.

    1. NumptyScrub

      Re: I totally agree with this

      If youtube and twitter can't abide by their own policies they should be shut down. Allowing themselves to be used to broadcast ransom demands and beheadings, and to be the media outlet of choice by terrorist organisations, they should be ashamed of themselves.

      If "terrorists" were disseminating "terrorist" information by putting bill posters up on empty walls, would you blame the walls (or the owners of the walls) for carrying that information, or the people who posted it in the first place? If I receive a phone call from someone constantly shouting racial epithets down the phone, and telling me how they will kill me slowly for having the "wrong" genetics, should my telephony provider be shut down for allowing it, or is it only the person who called me who should face prosecution for their actions?

      Also, terrorist according to which side? I see BBC News showed an awful lot of coverage of the insurgent US and UK forces when they toppled the sovereign government of Iraq (as in, the cocksucker that we put in charge in the first place), but we were blatantly the terrorist forces in that instance... violent acts that intended "(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping" and which were against Iraqi stat and/or federal law.

      Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to blackmail, kidnap and murder.

      It does, however, mean the freedom to talk about blackmail, kidnap and murder. Anyway, the point is moot because no country on the planet has actual "freedom of speech". All of them have laws governing various forms of hate speech and incitement (or exhortation) to violence, and even the "enlightened" countries have libel and slander laws. It would probably cause less confusion if people stopped using the terms "free speech" or "freedom of speech", because it hasn't been a thing for several hundred years, at least.

  7. 90
    Thumb Up

    Good Decision

    it's seem America using GOOGLE, YOUTUBE, and TWITTER using as weapons against their enemies

    for example last time they use a movie against the KOREAN President. and they are not using anything against America..........

    1. Tom Maddox Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: Good Decision

      Wat.

      1. 90

        Re: Good Decision

        Turkey made a Good d Decision. Coz when Social media banned on this type of matter then there is no conspiracy and then law enforcement agencies could work out better

  8. JaitcH
    Unhappy

    And Turkey wants to join the EU?

    It's even more authoritarian that the UK.

  9. x 7

    Common decency would suggest that removal of the posts is the correct thing to do.

    You have a photo of a guy about to be murdered. In the main our western press wouldn't publish that. Most of the media sites would pull it if they spotted it. Would any of you want a photo of a member of your family, about to be killed, placed on a public website? Why should Turkey be any different? They don't want images of their people being murdered made public. Why do you think its acceptable?

    Besides aspects of common decency, the photo acts as a recruiting poster to the sick bastards who carried out the execution. For that reason alone it should be suppressed.

    Accusing the Turkish government in this case is wrong. Yes, they have lots to answer for, but not in this case.

    1. Sven Coenye

      Then again, some of the Western meeja did manage to blab the location where extra hostages were hiding during the recent attack on a market in Paris.

      1. x 7

        if thats correct, then the idiots should be imprisoned

      2. Intractable Potsherd

        @Sven Coenye

        There is a recent example of the same in the Czech Republic. A man shot several people in a bar and a siege began. There was someone in the back of the building feeding information to the police from a phone. Stupid local politician couldn't keep his trap shut and told the media; media couldn't keep their traps shut either, and told ... anyone that was watching/listening. The police were stampeded into breaking the siege with force, fortunately killing only the man with the gun - though it could have been very different.

        What is it with reporters that stops them thinking "We probably ought to sit on that information fro a while"?

    2. Mark 85 Silver badge

      While what you say is essentially correct about maybe why it should have been pulled, there's a problem. The western press has posted "pre-death" pictures of various daesh hostages. There was a Pulitzer winner who photographed an NVA being shot by a South Vietnam officer... the list goes on.

      The reason it was pulled probably had nothing to do with family members feelings but with politics. Turkey has been shouting for years that there's nothing nasty going on in their country while persecuting the Kurds and denying it.

      The real issue is not that they wanted it pulled... it's why. Just like say, the Sauds regulate what's out there by rote of jail or lashings. Suppression of the news is more common than we think.

    3. icesenshi

      Common decency? Who decides? You? Just the same old tired arguments in favour of censorship.

      1. x 7

        "Common decency? Who decides?"

        If you have to ask that, then in reality you lose any credibility you may or may not have.

  10. x 7

    " persecuting the Kurds"

    and the Armenians, and the Assyrians, and the Circassians and the Greeks and any Christian group you care to mention. Genocides 'R' us

    The Turks have a lot to answer for, but in this particular case I think they're right. But looking at them overall, as Islamic governments go they are probably the best of a bad lot. Horrible thought

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Turkey?

    More like a bunch of chooks!

  12. naive

    Turkey is on the balance

    Given the volatile political situation in all the countries around the southern side of the Mediterranean sea, it just shows how desperate and afraid they are. It takes only 5% of young men who actively engage them selves for ISIS to create major problems in a country like Turkey. Shutting down the tools abused by ISIS to recruit more combatants is logical. The message of ISIS finds fertile soil in countries where many are poor, and have no prospects at all that it will ever improve. Perhaps the rise ISIS can be compared to the Russian revolution in 1917, communists became active in most European countries afterwards.

    1. x 7

      Re: Turkey is on the balance

      "Perhaps the rise ISIS can be compared to the Russian revolution in 1917, communists became active in most European countries afterwards."

      Interesting comparison..........I guess you could correlate the fundamentalist imams with the firebrand communists / trade unionists of the 1920's and 1930's.

      But who are the equivalents of Blunt, Philby, McClean, Burgess et.al ? They are potentially the more damagiing

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like