The Endless Game of Filtering
The Endless Game of Filtering
The governance of certain issues in our country falls among the wonders. In the past, officials and authorities in various institutions would flip through the calendar, pick a date, and announce that their important plan or achievement would be introduced or unveiled.
It doesn’t matter whether the plan is truly important or not; in any case, it’s the job of the officials to promote less significant matters as if they have achieved the accomplishment of the century.
To be fair, they are quite skilled at this, and it’s a tradition that the people themselves have become accustomed to.
During various national and religious occasions, we often have many such unveilings; it has always been this way.
In fact, in our country, the gears of policymaking have always turned like this—dry, without oil, and without maintenance. We have gotten used to it, and it’s unlikely that anything will change moving forward.
It’s like a game of probabilities where the public is entertained, daily affairs continue, and of course, tasks remain unfinished. When this happens, no one takes responsibility, and recently, another tradition has emerged where respected officials have left this important matter to us.
This means that we have to flip through the calendar and guess when the decision-makers and authorities will decide on a particular day to untangle a matter—often one they themselves have caused.
This probable day usually has special characteristics, such as being auspicious, with no dissenting voices, and more importantly, no protests against it.
Of course, this gift and favor that the officials bestow upon the people to make them happy also comes with conditions, allowing them to later remind us of it in many ways and derive benefits from its credit. Regarding the issue of filtering, as it appears and you know, the rule is the same.
Since December 25th of last year, when WhatsApp and Google Play were unblocked, numerous officials responsible for the digital space promised a thousand times that other platforms, especially Telegram and YouTube, would soon be unblocked as well.
Especially the government officials, who have long wanted to free themselves from the heavy burden of promises made during the elections so that everyone can breathe a sigh of relief.
To this day, this has not happened, and since that day, everyone has pretended as if nothing has happened.
As evidence suggests, it seems that the issue of lifting the filtering has become complicated in the Supreme Council of Cyberspace. There is such a division and disagreement that either the matter is removed from the agenda or the council’s monthly meeting is not held, effectively erasing the issue altogether.
The Supreme Council of Cyberspace has two types of members and groups: real and legal. The legal ones are 17 people whose terms depend on their organizational positions and change with new governments. The real ones are 10 appointed members whose composition hasn’t changed for several years. The council’s structure is such that a majority vote is needed for decision-making.
With this in mind, it goes without saying that the real members and the legal ones, most of whom are government officials, do not see eye to eye on the issue of lifting the filtering.
The disagreements are also over the clauses and articles of the council’s resolution, which conditions the lifting of the filtering on fulfilling certain prerequisites, such as establishing platform offices in Iran. Up to this point, one can guess who the opponents and supporters of lifting the filtering are, but believe me, what is hard to accept are the contradictions and inconsistencies of the officials.
Recently, the Vice President said that they have performed relatively well in lifting the filtering.
Aref said that the country’s decision-making system has concluded that the filtering should be lifted. I know these kinds of rhetoric are meant to keep hope alive for the people who have been waiting for months for the decision of the Supreme Council of Cyberspace, a council that doesn’t even hold meetings.
Why should we believe that everyone is in favor of lifting the restrictions and that decision-makers support lifting the filtering? Do they have any evidence or witnesses?
In a matter where everything remains speculative and doubt and uncertainty weigh more than definite statements, repeating claims that, unfortunately, no one in society believes is pointless, especially since opponents of filtering, contrary to their usual habit, remain silent in this instance.
However, supporters of lifting the filtering use every platform, wanted or unwanted, to say that the filtering will be lifted soon.
With this in mind, someone should inform the officials that the people themselves know when to resume the game of probabilities regarding lifting the filtering.
For now, it seems that lifting the restrictions is not auspicious, and we must continue to wait.