Monday, March 15th

9am: I’m currently on a trip to the US this week, both to Washington DC and to San Francisco that is geared towards journalists and citizen journalists. The “social media tour” is essentially a schedule of meetings with the US State Department and the White House, being exposed to how the Obama administration is using social media for public policy. The second half of the trip takes place in San Francisco, where we get to tour the offices of Google, Twitter, Facebook and Apple – getting to see how they work and what they have planned.

For full disclosure, this trip is arranged by the US State Department, and is part of an exchange program that has been running for decades, and actually – just a bit of history - Abdul Salam Majali was the first Jordanian to go on such a trip in his early days. The program has obviously evolved over time, to where it is today. In any case, the point of this trip is to get a sense of best practices when it comes to social media and public policy. As someone who is heavily involved in social media and is academically involved in public policy, I thought this would be a great opportunity to see how those two world collide. During trainings we often conduct with 7iber, Obama’s use of social media during his campaign has become a classic example of how these tools have been used to mobilize and spread information. Suffice to say, it will be interesting to see the architects of that social media strategy.

This post will be an online diary of the trip where I’ll just express various observations.

9:30am: Getting in to the State Department is like walking in to an American airport.

10am: Just met Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton in the Treaty Room at the State Department, but unfortunately she only had time for three questions. Fadi from the Palestinian News Network fortunately got to ask her about the recent situation that unfolded last week when Vice President Biden visited Israel on a peacekeeping mission only to be informed by the Israeli government that they were planning on building 1,600 illegal settlements in Jerusalem. Her response, while a bit lengthy, essentially boiled down to the US’s “commitment” to establishing a two-state solution and “whenever the Palestinians do something wrong, we will speak up, and whenever the Israelis do something wrong we will speak up.” Diplomatic answers for a diplomatic job. For a moment, I was reminded how close she was to getting the democratic nomination last year; a hair away from the presidency.

Her appearance was unscheduled so there was no time to really prepare for questions, but had I the chance, my question would have likely been about recent moves by the Jordanian government to censor the web. As she was speaking I remembered her speech back in January regarding free Internet. And while that speech was likely targeting China over Google’s decision to disband from the country and escape its Great Firewall – it also took place around the same time Jordan’s Supreme Court ruled on a case, opening the door for prosecution of what is said online. A draft of a Cyber Law by the government was also leaked online causing even greater worry, especially by local electronic newspapers who felt targeted. I mention Clinton’s speech because there is a belief in some circles, by some people working in this sector, that it was that speech that inspired the Jordanian government to put any moves towards web censorship on the back burner. I am not one of those people.

10:40am: Gathered in a room full of journalists who are all in the middle of doing write ups. It’s always interesting to distinguish between those who are working in mainstream journalism and those involved in social media; the latter always have nothing to do when there are no wireless connections around. For some odd reason, the State Department gets “nervous” with wireless connections and so there are none inside the actual main building. They also get “nervous” with cell phones, laptops, recorders and any other kind of electronic device – all of which are banned from important rooms like the Treaty Room.

12pm: Met Alec Ross, who is Clinton’s senior advisory of innovation. People in my line of work are pretty familiar with his name, as Ross was one of the architects of Obama’s social media strategy during the campaign, and was one of the co-founders of One Economy, the non-profit that a did a lot of great work in the 2000’s regarding bridging the digital divide (the bee hive, for those of you more familiar with that website, was one of their offspring). Ross talked a great deal about social media and how the state department has been using it. That ongoing experiment is something that’s pretty exciting to watch; the ways in which it evolves naturally. Ross mentioned the recent earthquake in Haiti and how, via the state department, they were able to create the messaging system that allowed Americans to donate $10 with an SMS the day after the news, raising millions in the process.

Tuesday, March 16th

9am: At the Newseum. Probably one of the most interesting museums I’ve ever had the pleasure of visiting. In a modernist design it blends the archives of history well with modern happenings. At its heart is a 4D theater that hosts the story of some major developments in American media and journalism history, including Nelly Bly and Edward R. Murrow. The museum is an archive of media history including a section dedicated to Berlin wall, and includes several slabs of the actual wall, as well as a section dedicated to 9/11, creatively displaying an endless series of front pages from around the world covering the next day’s news. The museum opened in 2007, but it is an ongoing evolution it seems. The blending of digital technology with a medium as old as newsprint is simply fantastic. One wall displays the front pages of newspapers from around the world, of that very day. The nerve center of the museum, filled with a team of people running the technology that fuels the place, is actually a transparent room that resembles a control room at a typical news station – so you get to see people at work, running the museum.

11:30: Off to the Democratic National Convention.

12pm: Today is an interesting day simply because Obama’s controversial health care bill is being debated in Congress, so everyone in government seems to be busy, including those meeting with us at the DNC.

12:15pm: At the DNC, meeting with two interesting individuals who worked on Obama’s campaign (I’ll update their names later on), specifically developing the social media strategy. These guys were at the forefront of the political campaign and were leaders in a story that is told and retold in social media circles. It is one thing to be an architect of such a strategy and be involved in the macro-planning of it, and it is another thing to be on the ground and getting to see what works and what doesn’t. Their experience, regardless of what politics, is priceless.
What is perhaps interesting to note is that social media for them may be better defined as digital media. In other words, what was used in the campaign was well tailored to areas and states where Internet access is low (reminding me Jordan). There was an enormous reliance on the use of mobile phones, which again reminds me of Jordan. The fact that mobile penetration is so much higher than that of the Internet is a major variable. Messages have to be tailored for that specific technology.

Fortunately, they stuck around long enough to take a great deal of questions. Again, it’s a busy day, even at the DNC.

It’s interesting to note that most of the group accompanying me, while young and willing to recognize the power of social media, are still mainstream journalists who do not quite connect with it on a human level. Having studied the Obama campaign’s social media strategy quite well over the past year, I managed to ask one question that I always wondered about. Having moved from campaigning to governing, how has the strategy changed with regards to that one fluctuating variable: passion…? During a campaign, people are hyped. The atmosphere is energetic, be it those people working on the campaign or those people who are being mobilized or those audiences being addressed. People are generally hyped and passionate about what’s going on. But what happens when the campaign is over and the passion shift, and gets divided in to small bits? When it’s no longer about choosing a presidency, but choosing a health care plan, or even smaller policy issues on a very local or state level. What impact does social media have then? Is it directly proportionate to the level of available passion on-the-ground?

1:30pm: Leaving the DNC only to find that the circus is in town. No, I mean literally. The circus is in town. Two dozen elephants marched right past the DNC prompting its employees to take a break from a very busy day to watch the march from the building’s terrace. If the Democrats lose the vote, let it be known that their employees were distracted by a circus outside their windows when they should have been manning the phones! Sounds like a Karl Rove tactic.

2pm: Unfortunately, the meeting at the White House was canceled and instead we are skipping forward to the Capitol Building to take a tour and meet with congressmen.

2:25pm: You can hear protesters outside the Capitol building. Some calling Obama a savior - others calling him a socialist. Socialism in the US is of course equivalent with Satanism, mainly due to Cold War era Hollywood produced anti-communist propaganda.

2:40pm: Getting in to the Capitol Building is a hassle. It’s exactly like security clearances at the airport except the security guards are almost always commanding and aggressive with people. This is perhaps a universal truth it seems. Empower the most blue-collar of workers with some authority and they will almost always use wield it in the most aggressive manner, and at the end of the day they’re “just doing their job”. Shoes off, jackets off, laptops out, bags scanned.

4:00pm: Tour is never-ending. Having just read Dan Brown’s The Symbol, my mind is constantly looking for all the Masonic symbology in the building including getting a first hand look at the image lining the ceiling of the rotunda, the apotheosis of George Washington. All history aside, I am simply dead tired of walking at this point, as is everyone else it seems.

4:10pm Gathered in a room where congressmen usually get sworn in, we await congressmen Byrd, a republican from Utah. He makes an appearance and takes some questions. His answers are of the conservative variety, including the typical “bombing Iran should always be an option on the table” response. Inspired by a commenter on this blog, I ask about the house bill that targeted arab media. He doesn’t remember the bill or the vote on it.

9pm: The day is long over but I decided to go for a walk, aiming to see the White House before I leave. Lost somewhere near the Washington Monument and George Washington University, I finally find my way. It’s much smaller than I imagined. I’ve seen villas in Abdoun that are bigger.

Interestingly, some protesters still linger outside. I arrive at the moment when they are clashing with just an ordinary Washington resident whose passing by and is probably an Obama supporter – at least from what I gathered from their rantings back-and-forth. The police are there, and trying to keep both people calm and far apart. The Obama supporter screams at the protesters “If you don’t like America, you can leave!”, which is usually what gets screamed at other groups who are demanding their rights and in the process deemed un-American (i.e. immigrants). It was hilarious to see it being thrown at a bunch of out-of-state conservatives.

Wednesday, March 17th

10am: Off to San Fransisco for a series of meetings with Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter. Or, in other words, the coolest part of this trip.

11am: The whole team is divided in to groups, with each group consisting of a small number of journalists who are lead by one person from the state department team. The idea is that this will help us get through the airport quicker. A paper with the names and groups is passed around the bus. My name appears at the top of group 1. Everyone in group 1 is Arab. This is no coincidence.

1pm: Upon getting our border passes and checking our bags, we head down to the security clearance area. We have been warned beforehand not to take offense of their security measures. We have been warned several times. What is interesting is that none of these warnings make things any less offensive. Approaching two security guards whose job is to look at our passports, visas and boarding passes before letting us go through security clearance, every Arab is told to step aside while others are allowed through. Slowly, one by one, group 1 reunites miraculously. At this point we are laughing at our predicament. The last person in our group is Moroccan and as he steps up to the TSA employee, I tell the other group that he might be the only one to get through. My theory is that Morocco is a fantasy like country with romantic notions that have been long embedded in American culture, specifically Hollywood movies. In other words, it isn’t necessarily deemed to be an Arab country. My whispered theory is a half joke but the Moroccan is allowed through, so I don’t know, I could be right.

We are then escorted by a TSA officer to a “special” line at the security clearance. Typical procedures take place. No shoes, no jackets, no belts, laptops out, bags separately, and then through the metal detector. Right after we pass the metal detector we’re put in this transparent quarantine box that probably has the dimensions of an elevator. What’s hilarious about the situation (and at this point I’m laughing a great deal) is that other people in the security lines next to us, pass us by casually, with everyone trying not to stare at the Arabs in the box.

One by one we are taken out and patted down. And I mean patted down. I mean every inch of us. In detail. Like, one of those 5 minute pat downs where it would’ve been just easier to undress completely. The funniest part is that the security officer is informing you out loud that he is patting you down, and that at this point, he is going to touch your sensitive areas with the back of his hand. To be fair, the officer assigned to me was fairly respectful, in contrast to the guy next to him. He uses the word “sir” after every sentence, and for some reason we all found this to be funny. It’s the equivalent of someone telling you not to take offense. “Sir, please spread your arms and legs while we violate you, sir. Thank you sir.”

Then our feet are checked. Then our palms are swabbed for chemical traces. Then our carry on bag is completely emptied. Every thing is checked. Every electronic device is swabbed and run through a machine. Every paper is looked at. Laptop is turned on and off. Swabbed. Scanned.

Eventually this entire process, which for an ordinary person would probably take 10-15 minutes, is over for us in over twice that time. We then proceed to have lunch at Wendys.

5pm: Arrive in San Francisco. Finally, a city that is bright, sunny, green and alive.

9pm: Walk along the Wharf down to Pier 39. It’s St. Patrick’s Day so people, the overwhelming majority are white and probably not Irish, are dressed in green and heading out to bars to drink the night away. It’s a tradition. No one knows why.

Thursday, March 18th

8am: Off to Facebook.

10:19am: Speaking to Barry Schnitt, Director of Policy Communications at Facebook. The place is actually pretty small, right off Stanford University. I don’t think Schnitt even got through his presentation before being bombarded by questions. It’s fascinating to hear questions from people who are from all over the world, and thus, ask questions that are more geared toward their locality. Most of the questions are laced with underlying notions of privacy. Obviously, in the Web industry, Facebook and Google are the two main entities that the world looks to when it comes to the question of online privacy. While Google has traditionally taken the lead here, Facebook is quickly becoming the principle actor in the spotlight for obvious reasons: it’s a world based on the notion that people are creating profiles of themselves, loaded with information about themselves.

On a side note, it’s actually great to be in a room where you can actually sit at a table and blog, take photos, record with a flip, and when your laptop runs low on power, charge it with the dozen Apple adapters at the table. And more importantly, there’s a stellar fast Internet connection, which helps you stay connected to news about Facebook - in case one runs dry on questions.

10:31am: An interesting question asked is about Facebook’s categorization of disputed and/or controversial territories, like Palestine, specifically Jerusalem. The answer was that their mission is to let the user choose instead of choosing for them. However, what they’ve done is (supposedly) programmed this choice according to language. So, hypothetically, if you have Facebook in Arabic, Jerusalem will be categorized as, well, not Israel. Don’t know if that’s accurate or not.

11:15am: The next two people speaking are off the record. For a company like Facebook, which is typically known as being the young, hip and cool organization - they’re really pretty uptight about information and giving out information.

1pm: Overall Facebook wasn’t the greatest of experiences. There was just too much information dealt out that was off the record. We were essentially stuck in a room and movement outside was limited to the bathroom. You couldn’t even linger in the hall. Generally, there was a bit of paranoia that made getting answers difficult. Even on the coolness factor that one would expect from a youthful company like Facebook failed. More later.

3pm: At the Twitter office listening to Biz Stone, co-founder of Twitter. The place makes up for the Facebook failure. An ultra-cool office, and a great presentation by Stone, who instead of boring us with a million slides, gave us the story of how Twitter started strictly from his perspective; depicting the moment “they” knew they were “on to something”.

3:17pm: Highlight of my day: got to name-drop Jordan’s WatWet as the Arab equivelent of Twitter. Don’t believe they knew about it, but awareness is a good first step.

Friday, March 19th

9:43am: Up at Google’s offices. Spanning across a huge corporate-like neighborhood, they’ve built a cool bubble for themselves. From colorful chairs to colorful walls, ping pong tables, indoor bike racks, neon signs in offices, arcades, and colorful sofas to work on. Seems a bit much for a company like Google, but then again, they are the fastest growing company in human history.

9:50am: Listening to Krishna Bharat, head of the Google News, explaining how the system actually works, and the amount of work the Google News team puts in to it on a daily basis. It’s not easy to rank stories in real time, according to their importance, sources, quality, freshness, and much much more. Krishna opened my eyes to one Google app I had never heard of: flipshare.googlelabs.com - an interesting way to views news without having to load the actual news site and wait for each page to load individually. Worth checking out.

11:25am: Just went through three different presentations by the Google team, including News, Wave and Buzz. Once again, getting to hear various questions by journalists from all over the world is interesting, as many questions are geared to a person’s own country and region. With that in mind, it is even more interesting to note the extent to which privacy seems to be a universal issue and/or concern. Google is undeniably at the forefront of that privacy arena, and everything they develop tends to receive some criticism regarding privacy settings.

When it comes to Buzz, it’s interesting to note that many see this as a similar product to Twitter, and to add to the confusion, Google is one of Twitter’s partners. The two products/platforms are like two bumper cars trying not collide with each other and probably trying to find ways to collaborate.

12pm: Going on a tour of the Google Campus

12:30pm: There is little that can be said, which has not already been said about the Google Campus. For the web enthusiasts, it is a fantasy land that has been described endlessly in books and magazine features for about a decade. And yet, none of that can truly do it justice. I’m not sure I should even try.

First off, there’s no photography or filming allowed so it’s tough to actually describe this creative heaven just with mere words. Better writers have tried. Yes, there are miniature swimming pools where you can swim endless laps without moving an inch - talk about the utilization of space! Yes, there are billiard tables and ping pong tables pretty much everywhere, as is a kitchenette area every 150 meters. The idea is to “force” employees to see, talk and collaborate with each other - even if it’s over a game of pool. And idea that would probably be scoffed at by every CEO in the Arab world, but according to our guide, Cliff, it was over a game of pool that someone thought it would be a good idea to put related advertisements on the pages of the Internet, and idea that gave way to Google AdSense and turned the tech-company in to the largest advertising company on planet Earth. Food, is free. Except for the vending machines, which contain snacks that vary from healthy to junk - there’s also a price discrimination strategy in place to encourage employees to purchase the cheaper and healthier healthy snacks. But, food is free. And the food court serves everything from pizzas, burgers and fries, to sushi and various Indian dishes.

12,000 employees live here - out of 22,000 worldwide. And by “live here” I mean they might as well. A shuttle service takes them to and from the campus and their homes. An on-campus service allows them to drop their laundry off, their shoes for cleaning, or film for processing; even an immunization shot at the doctor’s office should they happen to be traveling to, say, India. The idea is to compensate the employees for lost time. The strictness of a 9 to 5 work shift seems fairly absent - another idea that would send shivers down the spines of Arab CEOs who feel that roll calls are better indicators of efficiency than simply allowing the employees the freedom to just get their work done.

When you enter one of the main doors you’ll see a large screen TV that looks like a computer running code, when its really a list of search terms being searched right now from around the world (the “potty mouth” system filters the bad stuff out for friendly public-viewing purposes). Then a lobby appears and it’s dominated by two main things. The first is an exact model of the X-Prize winning “Space Ship One”, designed by Paul Allen (Google co-founder Sergey is a space enthusiast) - the second are the various projects worked on by Google engineers; prototypes that are a result of their 20% time - the time that Google allows them to dedicate toward developing pet projects of their own. One such project sits right by the door. Picture a circular enclosure that is built to house one or two people at a time. Inside are tall flat screens lined up next to each other, each connected to a linux machine. Each connected to Google Earth. In the middle a circular joystick-like Google mouse that allows the user to quickly navigate through a city using Google Earth. Say the name of a city in the world and from outer space, Google Earth zooms in to the city. The mouse let’s you travel through the city, even in Google Street View. Practical uses? Not quite known yet, but initial thinking is geared towards using it for first-response systems.

Google employees don’t seem to keep to their offices. You can see them in shorts and flip flops, stretched out on couches or in quieter half-glass meeting rooms, all named after cities around the world, including Casablanca, Tangier and Fez (tuning in to the Google Maps mindset). They are usually found talking with each other, or in complete solitude. Walking down a hallway you see people scribbling on giant mobile whiteboards, others tapping away on their macbooks, and others getting massages, while others running on a treadmill in the Google gym. A nod to all things Google, everything appears to be in Beta mode - even the gift store. Conversations are happening everywhere. Every square inch and every facility is being utilized at some point. Shirtless employees play volleyball outside near other employees behind their screens. Colorful walls everywhere. Open spaces, everywhere.

1:00pm: The Google Store has everything from google t-shirts and sweat pants, to google pedometers, frisbees, yo-yos and lava lamps. Google employees can even buy massively discounted cinema tickets here. They also serve free freshly-baked cookies. Felt that was worth sharing.

1:30pm: Had lunch in the midst of about a billion Google employees, and a few interesting people joined us for lunch. Luckily, I got to sit next to Scott Rudin who is the head of planning for public policy and communications, who knows everything there is to know about google policy. Much of the lunch conversation centered around China and Google’s shift in policy there recently. I have to admit, at this point, I was tired from hearing questions about the China situation, regardless of its importance (there are other places in the world). We shot some questions at Scott regarding the Middle East, specifically the filtering of results.

Here’s an interesting piece of information: according to Scott, when it comes to hate speech, Google only considers comments or videos (via YouTube) inciting hate or violence towards a person or a group of people who follow a set of beliefs as hate speech. But attacking and/or insulting a religious object is not categorized as such. So, if someone makes a video calling on the death of Muslims, it will be taken down. If someone burns a Quran, Google won’t touch it. This distinction is, according to Rudin, something that Google has had trouble explaining to its Muslim users - no doubt. What was interesting is that when a particular instance took place awhile back, with a video featuring the Quran being desecrated, Google contacted its Muslim employees to give feedback - asking them what they think Google should do. Google then made an executive decision based on this feedback, which wasn’t all favorable.

Google relies heavily on users to make the choice. Whether it is offensive content or comments, people get to flag and the number of flags that gather around a particular video, for instance, will push it up Google’s priority list - requiring the team to investigate it quickly. The average time it takes for the process of review and action to take place over, say, the review of an objectionable video - one hour.

2:00pm: Departing the Google Campus.

—
Please note that there are a great deal of typos and grammatical errors as the main aim for this post is to be updated quickly and on the road. I will review the language later.

More photos and videos to be added.

I just wanted to write a quick post to thank all the Jordanian netizens that joined us online yesterday in support of a censorship-free Internet in Jordan on World Against Cyber Censorship Day. The issue of censorship itself is not an easy issue and it’s one that most Jordanians, including bloggers and various other active netizens, would rather avoid. So to those who did dare to speak up and let their voice be heard on behalf of themselves and those who preferred to remain silent, I extend my gratitude and thanks to you. Moreover, Friday is usually an Internet-free day and unfortunately that was the day March 12th landed on - so again, I appreciate those who did show up to write posts, comment on posts, tweet, retweet and managed to get #FreeNetJO hashtag alive during an otherwise downtime of a day.

Like I said, this is an issue many would prefer to avoid - some due to the belief that it does not affect them personally as they do not write or comment or interact in any shape or form with that arena of “red lines”, and some due to the fact that they do not see how a censored Internet in Jordan will affect them or change the way they do things. This approach is a bit unfortunate in my opinion, simply because censorship is something that affects an entire society and finds ways to trickle down. From the information we receive to the way we interact and behave - the lingering presence of laws and penalties for speaking ones mind induces self-censorship at the highest levels. And the ripple effect is endless…

Lastly, to those cynical of social media’s ability to “change things” I don’t think I need to recount the cases where the opposite has been found to be true. But at the end of the day, the idea isn’t to simply post, tweet, comment and spread the word around in hopes that the Jordanian government will wake up the next day and shift the paradigm. It is about creating a conversation that is online and permanent. It is about creating awareness and generating interest. It is about rallying together in hopes of laying the groundwork for something bigger and better. That’s why these tools are important, regardless of the demographic that one may be convinced are their users.

Without awareness, without that conversation happening on the grassroots level, then nothing can ever happen. No movement can ever be built. And thus nothing will ever change.

We have to escape from this mindset that we are individuals and not a collective; that we are powerless; that we are too small; too insignificant; that we can play no role in the decision and policy-making process that determines the very way in which we live. We have to escape from this mindset that has had us believing it is up to the government to determine for us what we rights we are allowed to and what rights it believes we shouldn’t have. We have to escape from this mindset that has disabled us for so long and raising awareness at the most fundamental level is the first step.

The task isn’t easy and it’s almost always a long journey. But personally, I find some comfort in the words of anthropologist Margret Mead:

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Thanks to all.

“More and more states are enacting or considering repressive laws pertaining to the Web, or are applying those that already exist, which is the case with Jordan” - Reporters Without Borders, Internet Enemies Report, March 12th 2010

While Jordan didn’t make this year’s Internet Enemies list, to join the likes of fellow Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Tunisia - it is undoubtedly on the path towards this notorious list. Jordan has never been known for its free speech, only its “relative” free speech, or, in other words, its ability to remain “less worse” than neighboring nations who have more extreme speech conditions. This doesn’t make Jordan good or great, simply better than the disparaging context that surrounds it, which isn’t saying much at all.

As everyone in the Kingdom knows by now, 2010 started out only several weeks ago with the government seemingly on the march towards Internet censorship - or as they like to call it, “regulation”. While a supreme court case set a precedent, behind the scenes there seemed to be movement to enact a “Cyber Law” that would reign down a flurry of regulation of free speech online. As I wrote back in January, such moves are classic attempts by the Jordanian governments to implement policies that directly contradict His Majesty King Abdullah’s proclaimed vision for the country. This is not uncommon practice in the Kingdom, but it is nevertheless a case of citizen’s receiving guarantees on one hand and broken promises on the other.

However, in recent weeks, it has become abundantly clear the government’s problem with the Internet is the surge of electronic newspapers that have emerged in recent times. In some cases, many of these electronic newspapers have tread into scandalous territory, be it in hopes of generating sensationalism and thus traffic, or settling scores using a free medium, or guaranteeing advertising revenue. For the latter, those working in the traditional media sector have commonly attempted to point out how some of these electronic newspapers have sought to secure advertising on their site by blackmailing people, companies and organizations, with threats of launching online campaigns against them. In that vein, some of the content that has emerged on some of these sites is typically tabloidish, even going so far as to call people crooks (with no provided evidence), or even making haphazard claims about their character and their families.

The government is in a bind. If it regulates and enacts cyber laws it will be perceived by the international community and by human rights organizations such as Reporters Without Borders, as being oppressive. And while such prospects regarding human rights has never stopped the government in the past, relative free speech and expression may be one of the last things going for it at this point in time, and the government cannot afford to look increasingly oppressive in a delicate investor climate. On the other hand, there is the sense that something needs to be done to stop what is being said online.

Thus the first Pavlovian instinct of the Jordanian government: enact laws. Regulate. Censor. Prohibit. Threaten.

It is a gray line and the government is probably aware by now that it cannot have it both ways. It must choose a path.

However, one has to wonder, are there not already laws that one can utilize if they are slandered online? Can these laws not be used by ordinary citizens as needed? The answer, in my opinion, is a resounding yes. This is a country where if someone says something about you, you have the legal right to pursue them, even if they said it online. So why enact laws that regulate all free speech, in order to ensure the prosecution of some irresponsible speech. Moreover, why risk legal ambiguity, as witnessed in that court ruling earlier this year, in the last remaining real estate of freedom in Jordan?

Simply utilize the laws already in existence, which protect the rights of all citizens against defamation. The only sticky point here is that government officials should not be allowed to sue electronic media or any other form of media while in a position of political power. Stepping down from that position and pursuing the law as ordinary citizens is one thing - doing it from a political pulpit in a country where the separation between the executive and judicial branch are questionable at best, is simply wrong.

Moreover, the government’s progressive instinct when it comes to a so-called Cyber Law, should theoretically be to have a law that protect intellectual property online or protects people and organizations from spam or identity theft - not enacting a law to prosecute people for what they say online.

Lastly, when it comes to electronic newspapers or any other newspaper or media publication for that matter - free speech is meant to guarantee the freedom of all. Protecting the right for a tabloid magazine to say whatever it wants to say is the only way to ensure that “legitimate” publications have the right to whatever they want to say. Tabloids and scandalous material will always have its audience, be it in Jordan or elsewhere, and there isn’t anyone on the ideological spectrum that doesn’t roll their eyes at them. But the economic argument is that people tend to utilize their right to choose. The forces of the free market determine what is deemed credible and legitimate and what is not. In the overwhelming majority of cases worldwide, “legitimate” media always gets the share of credibility from the readers, i.e. the consumers. Those lacking credibility tend to slowly face their own demise due to lower demand and thus lower sales.

The government responding to these publications with censorship only lends them legitimacy and credibility, and there is no entity that offers a surge of credibility in Jordan than its own government. We’ve seen this in the political sphere as well as the media arena.

So on today of all days, I hope these words can inspire some good sense in decision-makers, and hopefully Jordan can continue to remain off that Internet Enemies list.

Dear Jordanian Bloggers and Tweeps. March 12th is the World Day Against Cyber Censorship, which has been organized by the French-based organization, Reporters Without Borders (RWB) for a few years now. RWB will also be releasing their annual “Internet Enemies” list, which compiles the names of governments that have unfriendly cyber policies - and most of those governments are of course Arab. The list also includes “under surveillance”
countries and we can expect Jordan to possibly make an appearance this year - and of course we all know why.

Over the past year, pieces on the board game seem to have been shifting adversely - from the parliament’s lawsuit against Khaled Mahadein’s online article to the very recent case that was brought to the country’s Supreme Court, which resulted in a very unfavorable ruling - to revealed designs that the government may be planning to implement a “Cyber Law” to regulate the online world.

All of these moves, and more, are implications that we, as members of this online world, are under threat. What we say and what we do online is under threat. The guarantees once made are slowly disappearing in the face of increasing government intervention.

In other words, there has never been a more important time to fight back, to take a stand, to speak up, to mobilize, to say something.

As a Jordanian blogger I can only call on those who are fellow bloggers to take this upcoming day as a chance to voice your support for a free Internet in Jordan.

For my fellow tweeps, I can only ask that you come together to tweet those posts produced by the blogosphere, or tweet your own messages in support of a free internet. Perhaps we can use the single hashtag of #FreeNetJo to unite our tweets.

Put up a badge found on RWB, or wear a twibbon. For those participating in Blog About Jordan Day, feel free to make this topic the subject of your post. You can also join the Facebook event and pass it on to friends just as a way to spread the word locally.

Let’s simply come together on this day (and yes, I know it’s a Friday) to do something that says to the world and to our government that we are present, that we stand for something, that what we think and say matters, and that it matters enough to stay free and uncensored.

Blog, Tweet, Retweet, Comment, Spread Posts, Wear a Twibbon, Join the Facebook Group, Invite your Friends!

Be EVERYWHERE!

Spread the WORD!

THIS IS AN ONLINE RALLY FOR FREE SPEECH IN JORDAN!

Thanks.

My eyes expanded ten-fold early this morning upon reading this late-breaking news that four individuals have been detained on corruption charges related to the very controversial Jordan Petroleum Refinery Company. Normally this kind of news might fly under the radar with the expectation that those detained will likely be low-level employees, but upon reading the names, you’re forced to pause and make sure you read that right. Former minister, Adel Qudah, former JPRC director general Ahmad Rifai, the prime minister’s economic adviser, Mohammad Rawashdeh, and business tycoon Khaled Shahin. All big names, especially the latter, whom it seems was taken straight to prison from a hospital bed soon after an operation.

I don’t ever recall any one on this level being detained on suspicion of corruption in Jordan’s recent history - at least not this publicly. Without a doubt, the view from the street suggests that this is the first dose of credibility for the Rifai government’s push on anti-corruption and pro-ethics “movement” that has traditionally been all-talk and little action.

Obviously, the real test lies in what happens next. Most of them will post bail no doubt (they can afford to buy the prison itself 100 times over), but whether this unfolds in to an actual trial, it will be a sight to see. The Jordanian equivalent of putting Al Capone on trial.

But as someone who is old enough to know better, I wouldn’t hold my breath just yet.

Earth Hour is fast approaching. Only 30 days left and counting. I think we, as Jordanians, and especially those of you who are connected, online and have a green spirit, need to be pro-active this year. There’s a lot that can be done to prepare for this global event and the most important of which is to mobilize and create awareness. This will be the first of many posts in the next month that will aim to do just that. We’ll try and go step by step.

The first step is to put Jordan on the map. Literally. The supporters map on Earth Hour is a reflection of commitment and Jordan should not be the country in the Middle East with a mere 500 supporters. Let’s aim for at least 2,000 this year…

Simply add your name or organization here and let’s get that number up.

From a death sentence to a mere 10 year conviction - a young man who killed his married sister because he suspected her of having an affair simply because she was on the phone too long.

Court transcripts said the victim had been staying with the defendant at the time of the murder as her husband had been in prison for the previous two years for a criminal offense.

“The defendant noticed that his sister was talking on the phone for long hours and suspected that she might have been involved in an extramarital affair,” court papers said.

“He decided to get rid of her to defend his family’s honour and acquired a knife for that purpose.”

On the day of the incident, the court added, the defendant waited until three of his sister’s four children went to school, then entered her room and started stabbing her without a word. [source]

It baffles me - not the crime - but the way people think. Yes, to most men, talking on the phone for more than 4 minutes is a waste of time and any male who has long conversations on a phone is probably talking to a significant other (that’s just how we think) - but to simply apply this as justification, actually, worse, to apply this as reasoning is just. I don’t know. Is there a word for it? Has any language yet to invent the appropriate adjective?

I have struggled to understand the concept of honor in our society, and since I confess to living in an urban bubble where the same social and cultural dynamics are not as applicable as they are elsewhere in the Kingdom, I continue to struggle to understand how honor in Jordan is understood; is cleansed, and, more importantly, to what extent it is cheapened when it leads to death for the most frivolous of reasons. In these social environments when family honor is the most cherished of treasures, to what extent is it devalued when someone decides to kill his sister for talking too long on the phone, or even worse, for being abducted and raped?

Understanding it takes in to account that most Jordanians invest an immense sense of pride in honor and will destroy anything that tarnishes it. Thus, the young girl becomes the biggest liability - the biggest target and source of shame for a family. For all sexual transgressions are anchored to the young females of the family who are quickly married off in the name of preservation. And understanding that is, for me, difficult. I can’t claim to know what it’s like to live in these specific environments. I can’t claim to even imagine the difficulties that come with living in a community where your honor is essential to your co-existence. I can’t claim to understand how a 69-year old man could so easily shoot his daughter on her wedding day and…

…When the police and criminal prosecutor arrived at the scene, the father fired several rounds in the air, saying he was celebrating the killing of his daughter, an official source close to the investigation told The Jordan Times at the time of the incident.

“I have cleared the family’s name and cleansed my honour. Let everyone in my town know that I killed my daughter for this reason.” [source]

It just baffles me.

Perhaps the legal solution is no longer the right solution. Perhaps it is time to redefine honor. Perhaps it is time to shift mindsets by using the same weapon that motivates these killers: shame. Perhaps it is time to tie shame as the outcome of an honor crime rather than the crime being the path to overcoming or avoiding shame. For it’s not honor that is obviously the issue here, it is the shame that comes with that honor being tarnished.

It would be interesting to see a national campaign that takes the word “shame” to a whole new level. Something grassroots. Something simple and straight to the point. Something that creates an environment where someone who kills in the name of honor suffers more shame than he ever imagined possible. It would be interesting to see it applied to judges, tribunals and even any member of parliament who votes down any attempts by the government to change the law. It wouldn’t need to be a document or a petition - just a simple symbol. A brand. A brand that people can easily identify and will do anything in their power not to be caught dead being associated with it. A brand like a scarlet letter.

Anyways.

It baffles me.

With a gigantic deficit of at least JD1.4 billion on our back, it seems that pointing out the country is drowning in debt is simply an understatement these days. While some are asking where that money actually went, the natural government reaction is of course to tax the people who are already struggling to make ends meet. Yes, perhaps one of the better policies to emerge in recent times was the decision not to tax incomes under 1,000JDs and that is arguably representative of the vast majority of Jordanians whose income is no where near that figure. However, in lieu of this taxation, one’s income is taxed on pretty much everything that moves under the Sun. From staple goods like rice, sugar, coffee and tea to blood. Yes, blood. You know that joke that the only thing left for the government to tax is air, well I’m pretty sure that it’s not only true these days, but that there are probably policies in place that tax air as well, framed nicely as an environmental policy.

When times are financially tough, households will always tighten their belts. This is a natural reaction of the people. If you suddenly make less, or if you suddenly have to pay more for what your dinar is worth - then tightening the belt is in order. In other words, when times are tough people look to their own households (or purses) to put things in order. The higher and more comprehensive the taxation, the greater the tightening, which of course is a natural reaction that never helps a government climb out of debt, especially when it needs people to spend and thus fuel the machinery that is the national economy.

However, the important part here is that the people look to themselves first, usually because they have no other option. The government seems to rarely do that. When economic plans are announced regarding addressing the deficit, they usually involve new taxes. But how many times has the government announced that it will look to tighten its own belt? I would argue that it is a rare occurrence. In the past 12 months, while new taxes are introduced some of the biggest cases of corruption have appeared and then, ever so promptly, disappeared - never to be heard from again. Were they resolved? Was the money, which at times stood in the millions, ever recovered? Corruption, it seems, continues to be on the rise in the public sector and this is just judging by the amount of press coverage it has received in the past year alone. It is an industry that represent millions upon millions of dinars leaking through a public sector in shambles. If one is drowning in a sea of debt does he not look to at least attempt to plug the holes in his own boat first?

What about over-expenditure? What about mis-expenditure? Is the government in a position to do some self-reflection and determine what it does and doesn’t need in terms of its own expenditures? Based purely on observation, every year it seems we see government officials being driven in the absolute latest Mercedes or SUV - and this is despite the presence of a policy determined to encourage the purchase of hybrid cars. Do these vehicles alone not represent millions - do their consumption of fuel (which comes out of the taxpayer’s pocket) not represent millions?

Or how about the state-owned Jordan Television, which somehow manages to house 1,850 employees, 300 of whom are just gardeners; 150 of whom are just drivers. If the minimum wage of JD150 is applied here (just as an example) then those 300 gardeners represent JD45,000 monthly, or JD540,000 annually. The 150 drivers represent JD270,000 annually. This is just in one public institution. I’m not calling on everyone to be fired, I’m simply asking if JTV needs 300 gardeners and/or 150 drivers?

The list goes on and on, and I’m sure if one simply analyzed the cabinet’s budget for the year they’d see unnecessary expenditure at a time when belts require tightening. It is actually in the government’s interest to tighten its own belt simply because it not only costs it a whole lot less than taxing the people, but because getting people to spend will inevitably yield higher returns a la the multiplier effect.