Two out of the last three remaining somewhat independent media that were still operating in the country (already under major restrictions) were also shut down, TV rain just did their last transmission and walked out of the studio crying:
Very similar to what China has done. Seems that it's unfortunately pretty effective. Control the information the people are fed and they control public opinion.
I’ve been saying that this is starting to happen in the United States (there’s currently a public debate on this) and it could swing full authoritarian.
I hope the citizens realize it can be just as bad in the West if we give governments and corporations more control
This is something I'm very interested in. Is the average Western consumer of COVID misinformation, racial hate-baiting, etc. seeing a sudden decrease in new "content" to share?
Does anyone know of any organizations studying the ongoing levels of creation and engagement with that type of content?
A new arrival to Gulag is asked: "What were you given 10 years for?" – "For nothing!" – "Don't lie to us here, now! Everybody knows 'for nothing' is 3 years."
"I am American, I live in a free country: I can go to a main square and call president (Reagan/Nixon/whatever) an idiot and nothing will happen to me!" - "Well, I am Soviet citizen, I also live in a free country: I can go to a main square and call president (Reagan/Nixon/whatever) an idiot and nothing will happen to me!"
I always get that video recommended underneath footage of atomic bombs going off or movies like threads.
Fitting, because the Reagan administration didn't realize at the time that they were accidently convincing the increasingly old men leading the USSR that the US was preparing a first strike on the evil empire.
Heh. The one where he has two Russians arguing and one asked whether the SU was at the pinnacle of communism and his buddy’s answer was hell no, things are gonna get a lot worse!
I don't read Russian, so I can't comment on that article.
I don't find the anti-semitism charge very credible, he speaks out against anti-semitism very strongly in both the Gulag Archipelago, and several essays. He also claimed that an anti-semitic essay attributed to him was a hatched job by the KGB, which seems at least possible. I also stand by my claim that he was a brilliant writer. I think if you try to take everything in his descriptions of the Gulag system as literal fact, you'll find historical discrepancies, but his work isn't meant to be wholly historic, but rather more expansive.
It’s not credible, and anyone who has read more Solzhenitsyn than a summary of Two Hundred Years Together knows that.
When he published it he spoke of Jewish friends praising Russian silence on the history he covered. This is kind of the same thing. There is a really unfortunate tendency by certain groups to equivocate criticism of historical Jewish actions with criticism of the Jewish people, and the word antisemitic has lost almost all meaning as a result. Reaction to that book is far from the sole example.
It is possible to criticize the behavior of certain historical Jews without filling your heart with hate for an entire people and preaching Hitler’s ideologies. That is a nuance that is lost by Jewish people who call others “antisemitic” at the first hint of criticism. That said, however, it is also somewhat fair because the Jewish people have endured unspeakable horrors in a blink of history.
I've read The Gulag Archipelago and some essays, but not Two Hundred Years Togethers so I can't comment on that work. I generally get the sense from his work that I have read that he harbored no ill will towards anyone based on ethnic or Religious identity.
> I think if you try to take everything in his descriptions of the Gulag system as literal fact, you'll find historical discrepancies
What ones stand out for you? I am relatively ignorant on the subject. Your comment stimulated me to google a bit and I came up with this¹ critical (and currently topical) criticism of him for anti-semitism in which he is accused of blaming Jewish people for playing a leading role in the red terror:
His reported self defense included a reference to the Kiev/Kyiv Cheka (precursors to OGPU and NKVD):
'To explain the actions of the Kiev cheka [secret police] only by the fact that two thirds were Jews, is certainly incorrect."'
Sidenote: regardless of the merits of the book or its criticisms I thought this was a funny line: "This book is a weak one professionally. Factually, it is so bad as to be beyond criticism. "
I think he gets some fair criticism for reporting some third hand accounts of some mass executions and publishing some inflated numbers, but I don't think his intention was to pin those down precisely, but rather to give account of the magnitude of the tragedy.
Even if he was an antisemite at one point in his life or even his entire life, how does that change what the original poster said about him - that he was brilliant?
I'm genuinely curious because I've seen this kind of knee-jerk response across many avenues (e.g. x is an antisemite, is hitler, is a facist, is a commie, is a trump supporter) and I don't understand it.
In the medieval era most people participating in European civilization would qualify for the modern definition of antisemitism. Should I simply disregard the good works of writers and thinkers from that time period and geography?
If anything I am pro-semite but it's a struggle for me to grasp why the antisemitism of an individual should affect my opinion of their work or ideas. Even though I don't approve of their opinions regarding a people group it simply does not follow that I ought to dismiss everything they have ever said.
Was Elizabeth Holmes brilliant for defrauding Silicon Valley for over a decade with Theranos? By your standards, yes.
If Solzhenitsyn writes a brilliant but mostly exaggerated and fictitious account of Communist Russia, do you really want to celebrate this achievement? I do not and that's why I posted.
> Was Elizabeth Holmes brilliant for defrauding Silicon Valley for over a decade with Theranos? By your standards, yes.
It's not just my standards. I could be wrong here, but I think most people would find her brilliant. That's part of why her fraudulent behavior was so successful.
Not sure you meant to, but you've dodged my main question. Why should I factor in his antisemitism (alleged or not) when considering his brilliance?
You originally said Solzhenitsyn was antisemitic, now you are claiming he wrote an exaggerated account of Communist Russia. Either or both of those claims may be true. I don't know the veracity of either and I'm not arguing those. I'm asking *why I should disregard his purported brilliance altogether even if those claims are true*?
Washington owned slaves. Edison likely exploited his workers for his own gain. Martin Luther was an antisemite. Nelson Mandela had ties to terrorists. Joan of Arc was a heretic. Theodora was effectively a prostitute at one point. These men and women all did and said things we would not approve of, and yet there are qualities they held and actions they took which we celebrate to this day. I don't see how some corrupt part of their character gives cause to dismiss them entirely.
Even if The Gulag Archipelago was mostly fictitious, which it certainly is not, it would still be a staggering work of literary brilliance. There is quite literally no other work I'm aware of in Western literature that is even comparable. The prose is incredible, moving, at times dark and punishing, and in a turn hilarious and you really feel the wight of the exercise of having written the thing while reading it.
The broad facts are well supported by what's come out of Soviet archives since the 90s and further details are supported by the Mitrokhin Archive. The surviving Stasi archives also paint a similar picture.
So I found a translation of that article and another article by the author. It seems like the gripe is that Solzhenitsyn wrote about some Bolsheviks and gulag camp administrators in a way that drew attention to their Jewish identity, and that leads some critics to believe he was in fact an anti-semite. Is that a fair reading?
I don't actually see any evidence that his portrayal of life in the Soviet Union was anything but accurate, at least from the perspectives available to him at the time. I'm sure there were a great many possible life experiences, especially for people born after the terror, but the terror too was part of the Soviet experience.
Putin sitting alone in some room.
On the door: (Knock knock)
Putin: "Who's there?"
From outside: "Kyiv"
Putin: "I don't get it."
From outside: "That's right. You won't."
It's good to remember that the previous American president also waged a war against every media outlet he didn't like by claiming they were "fake news." It's the same authoritarianism in different stages.
And if you think nobody in America wants to jail journalists and media CEOs, go look at any forum with a substantial amount of Republicans talking freely.
The backchannels were Manafort/Kilimnik, Michael Flynn/Kislyak, and more. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-... is a digestible background. That is just the US - most European countries have analogues, as do key Asian, African, and South American countries.
The are not separate phenomenon at different stages, they are a global, coordinated group. They were coordinated by the massive cash flows coordinated by a small group in Russia. The use coordinated tactics, in concert with each other.
Yes, it's the same trans-national crime syndicate. It's the same war, even – it's just recently became kinetic. Amazing the ROI that Vlad got from TFG.
In case anyone is curious, it appears that ROI = "return on investment", Vlad = Vladimir Putin, and TFG = "the former guy" = Donald Trump. It appears to be the ~4th time the latter abbreviation has been used on this site.
It's one thing for Zuckerberg to ban you, and another thing for Putin to do the same. If Facebook bans you, you can go somewhere else. But they aren't the only game in town and their power is limited to refusing to serve you. If a government bans you, that means almost certain death.
I mean, let's not pretend that in Facebook's ideal world where they own the market, there _wouldn't_ be somewhere else to go to. Obviously that's not the case today, but I'm concerned that it'll get there eventually just based on how network effects seem to be trending.
I will not deny for a second that Zuckerberg dreams of having the kind of big monopolistic platform that would let him single-handedly suppress speech he doesn't like. However, that's still not as bad of a harm as being thrown in jail for the same thing. There's a huge gulf between "large multinational corporation" and "sovereign nation" - the former can still have it's power challenged through antitrust law and regulations, while the latter is immune to such things because they have their own military.
That's not really a good comparison. Being an asshole to journalists if really different than putting them in jail for their reporting. The difference here is that some Republicans who have no power to actually do that talk shit about doing it, but Putin actually jails a lot of journalists.
I don't think they're saying that Republicans are currently doing what Putin is currently doing. They said some people want to jail journalists, and you seem to be agreeing by saying those people "talk shit" about jailing journalists. Maybe one could say that talk is harmless, but I think most would challenge that.
My claims is that the phrase "the previous American president also waged a war against every media outlet" is overblown nonsense. There are a mere handful of marginal Republican nobodies who support this stuff and we saw for 4 years that the courts are happy to slap down any US politician makes big constitutional missteps.
No, that phrase isn't 100% true. Trump didn't wage war on Brietbart, OAN, and the like. Only "mainstream media" like CNN and even Fox when they reported what he called "fake news," actually facts he didn't like.
It's also not true at all. There was no war on any journalists. I'm not aware of a single journalist jailed by the Trump DOJ, the FCC didn't yank any licenses, nothing. It was all talk.
During the BLM protests, there were hundreds of assaults and detentions of members of the press, along with an enhanced surveillance apparatus. That these actions didn't go through the strictest official channels doesn't mean that they didn't happen.
This seems to be largely about your definition of war. No elections were overturned, but could you say he waged war on elections? He had his team out there saying that Hugo Chavez created the rigged voting machines and that it was statistically impossible for Biden to have won. It was an ideological war, not a physical war. You don't have to jail anyone to nonetheless do broad damage to an institution. I agree that people can over-analyze sloppy comments from fringe weirdo politicians, but here is something the president tweeted:
>“They can’t stand the fact that this Administration has done more than virtually any other Administration in its first 2yrs,” he continued. “They are truly the ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”
Being a shit-bag and. a bully just isn't a "war". Arguably the controversy saved most of the legacy media landscape from financial ruin and gave them 4 more years to adjust to some new revenue models, the NYT in particular seems to have figured out how to pivot to a profitable online subscriber model that works. It wasn't clear in mid 2016 that they would be able to do that.
You can make a good case that the guy damaged the discourse and eroded trust in institutions, but news and journalism have flourished in recent years.
> During the BLM protests, there were hundreds of assaults and detentions of members of the press, along with an enhanced surveillance apparatus. That these actions didn't go through the strictest official channels doesn't mean that they didn't happen.
Trump's commentary on the violence against the press: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/19/media/trump-velshi-msnbc-shot...
I agree that local police assaulting journalists is awful, they should be fired and prosecuted. And I'm aware that Trump made some dumb ass comments praising that shit, but it doesn't constitute a war on the press. You're talking about some isolated disparate instances perpetrated by unrelated local police departments during a summer of protests and riots. That isn't an act of the executive branch of the federal government. The US doesn't have a strong presidential system like say for example France. The us president has virtually 0 control over any individual police departments other than threatening to yank some drug war funding.
There do exist levers the executive branch could pull to attack the press, e.g. via the FCC or by having the DOJ prosecute sources. The Trump admin didn't do those things despite all of his bluster. He basically ended the policy of aggressively prosecuting leakers and spent all day engaging with the media. Sure he's a shit bag who did crimes, but the war on the press stuff is overblown.
> The Trump admin didn't do those things despite all of his bluster.
Yes, it's an administrative motte & bailey. Police support, individual and organizational, for Trump is incredibly high and their loyalty to him transcends official channels. He's explicitly endorsed violence against journalists, brutality towards suspects, and celebrated the execution of Michael Reinoehl. While he didn't have direct control over the state police, he spoke directly to them frequently, and encouraged all of this.
Again, encouraging bad actors is 100% different from using the full power of the executive branch to persecute journalists which he did not do, and Russia does.
That doesn't really mean anything on the ground. The situation in the US is 100% different. Some dumb-ass president can love authoritarian shit all they want, but don't have a ton of actual power to lock up journalists. Russia just today shut down its last non-government owned TV station. That just can't happen in the US legally, and the courts are quite protective of speech and property here. The Trump years saw numerous cases of supposedly friendly judges telling him to fuck off. And the few avenues he did have to legally attack journalists, like prosecuting their sources, he didn't use unlike the previous administration.
Frankly he's just a stupid demagogue, and a symptom of the erosion of trust in institutions. But he didn't wage war on the press. THere's no evidence to support that outside of his bluster. He belongs in jail, but not for this.
What do you want me to say? They shouldn't be doing that and anyone involved should be booted out of government. I've long argued that most of the really awful shit done by the US domestically is perpetrated by local governments. They're still not going to be able to successfully prosecute any journalists.
I get it to some extent. People really hate Trump, and I understand that and largely agree. I think it can be threatening to people when their identity is wrapped up in really heated partisanship to have an attack on their enemies questioned. It's only human to want to rally around something and have a hated outsider. And Trump truly is a bag of shit, he just wasn't as bad on this one narrow thing as newspapers and cable news might want you to think.
Assange should be let go, what's happened to him has been awful. But that's the result of the Obama administration's policy and is literally 1 person vs. the eradication of all independent press in an entire nation. We should free Assange and condemn Russia jailing at least 293 journalists right now.
Completely in agreement. But it's important to note that we have more power over what happens to Assange than we do over Russia.
Empty condemnation of Russia while we simultaneously prosecute the publisher of information which helps us decide whether we are behaving in an immoral manner is not merely hypocritical: it's corrosive of the fundamentals of our society.
Right now the Afghans, Iraqis and Syrians that we murdered and the Yemenis that we are helping murder make condemnation of the Russians not just odd, but erodes all possibility of working in a fairer world.
You can walk and chew gum at the same time as the expression goes. I've written to representatives specifically about cutting off arms and intelligence to the Saudi effort in Yemen, and as I said I'm against prosecuting Assange.
However bringing up Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria (where Russia is inflaming the situation too), and Yemen is whataboutism. The discussion was about Russia's shitty record on press freedom.
But if we are trying to dig into the current conflict, the US hasn't invaded anyone for territorial expansion in a long fucking time. Russia has recently invaded Ukraine three times, Chechnya twice, and Georgia.
I don't care if the US "invaded anyone for territorial expansion" or did it for shits'n'giggles. It has done all the above and more which weakens any chance that calls for democracy, international order, peace, stability and trade can work.
The US is deeply disruptive to any of that happening because it opens the door to the MiniMe despots being able to claim that spending stupid amounts of GDP on weapons and having a "strong leader" is the only thing which will see them safe from being invaded "not for territorial expansion" during a "long fucking time".
That's why it is appropriate, relevant and not simply whataboutism.
Russia and other states are worse than the USA because they need to be in order to claw their way up the dungheap piled up by US foreign policy. And there is little inherent in US norms or culture which would prevent similar anti-democratic and anti-liberal punishments. To back to the OP: these are all shades of authoritarianism and we see calls all over the media and this very forum in favor of censorship, war and other stupidities.
Don't kid yourself, this isn't whataboutism, it's the very subject under discussion: Russia is violating international agreements and norms and in part this is because the USA has shat all over those for a very long time.
> And if you think nobody in America wants to jail journalists and media CEOs, go look at any forum with a substantial amount of Republicans talking freely.
I'm a liberal and would like to point out that fellow liberals say the same about conservatives. We're wasting energy and making enemies fighting a narrative warfare, and it's frankly very stupid.
Jail the their protestors, but not our own. Deplatform their voices and curtail their free speech, but not our own. It's the exact same behavior in both sides, yet both parties rush in to say how they're different and morally correct.
We need to mend ties, not strain them further. We're becoming too polarized, and that's exactly what authoritarians that eye the end of Democracy and its influence want. We're focused on fighting our petty squabbles instead of positioning ourselves in the global sphere.
If you think any of our manufactured crises are even in the same order of magnitude as what Ukraine is facing right now, then they're already winning.
My worry isn't in owning or being owned by the other party. It's that Democracy is shown to be less effective, that free speech is put in a box, and that we end the century in shackles. No future under those pretenses is worth looking forward to.
Nearly all of recorded human history has been rule by gangsters - the liberal democracies of the rich world are an aberration, not the norm. I think about this almost daily and it terrifies me.
Yes! I often wonder whether, in the far future, there will even be historians that know that for a brief moment in time - a couple of centuries - a historical blip - there was a significant chunk of the world where the masses could educate themselves and rise above their origins, without fear of reprisal from the state.
What I fear most is a return to the historical mean - where the vast majority are mere peasants. Ignorant, and systematically oppressed, restrained, and exploited.
The global fascist movement has had success hijacking the Republican party and some parts of the left (eg Gabbard). Largely the success on the right was greater because of affinity toward aggrievement in the electoral base that was more susceptible exploitation, but it also reflects the more mature financial channels (eg NRA).
But this is not a left/right political issue. That is incidental. The social exploit of this foreign operational is orthogonal to political ideology and both side stand to suffer substantially. Trump's lack of conservative ideology bona fides are well documented.
I'm currently debating how many burner accounts I should make to upvote this, because this so succinctly describes the situation. Everyone wants the thing they hate gone, and hates the the other side feels the same way about something they love.
(note to mods: after debate, the answer was 0, plz no rate limtz)
Agreed. If there's anything I've learned over the years, it's that Democrats and Republicans are equally nasty. The only difference is one side is much more powerful because they are supported by virtually every cultural institution that exists.
To be honest, the blue camp is different only in rhetoric: if the red wants control in the name of national security, the blue wants the same control in the name of grotesque moral rightnessess. Fake news is a good summary of our media today, it just applies to both camps.
I notice that Democrats aren't forming white supremacist militias, plotting to kidnap state governors, attacking Congress specifically to overturn the results of a national election, etc.
Democrats have plenty of blood on their hands in demanding censorship.
Remember the accusations of racism that were used to shut down the lab leak theory? Or the demands to censor scientists with any dissenting viewpoints over Covid? The cover up of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal that resulted in journalists from the Post being banned?
The "war on disinformation" their obsessed with is not any different from a "war on fake news". Censorship is a tool of cowards and there are plenty of cowards in both parties that will use it to shut down any dissenting view points.
We shouldn't allow people to spread lies and demonize one side unchecked. If were going to talk about problems, its best we don't scape goat on one side and admit there are flaws in both parties.
Letting them scape-goat and demonize unchecked doesn't help anything either.
I stand by what I said. Focus on what you have in common and deal with disagreements by leveraging conflict de-escalation techniques such as NVC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication. Think about what you stand to gain arguing with someone on the internet. Consider what it does to your mindset. I agree with you on civil disagreement and standing up for what you believe.
For instance - I disagree with you on the lab leak theory and laptop comments. I understand you feel about them strongly, but I think you are smart and should reconsider the source material for those claims. Further, I feel the way you expressed it was regrettable: "blood on their hands" is unnecessary and inaccurate. You could have phrased that in ways that were more accurate, more effective, and less inflammatory.
Everyone is literally less intelligent, less capable of rational decision making, and more susceptible to manipulation when they are angry. I have certainly been guilty of this before, and I am just trying to share some of what I have learned.
One final comment: one thing that all social media including HN could do is remove user-visible up and downvotes. It engages the brain in a similar way to gambling (https://www.brainfacts.org/diseases-and-disorders/addiction/...) and creates self-reinforcing conflict that can be exploited.
So your saying Democrats are not in favor of censorship? Are we just going to pretend this is a one sided issue and they were not guilty in trying to cover up the lab leak theory or going after journalists who try to write stories about hunter bidens laptop?
I don't see how pointing how both parties are guilty of engaging in censorship is wrong. I am advocating for the position that censorship is a tool used unfairly by both parties when they are given the chance, I don't like conservatives or republicans either for how they treated Edward Snowden and Juliane Assange.
Your second paragraph stands alone on its own well without the first. I think human flaws spread around pretty evenly. It's actually a pretty good starting point for thinking humanizing the person you are disagreeing with and establishing common ground. If it's okay, I don't want to talk about the lab leak or laptop here - I don't want to distract from the separate topic of this law imposing 15 year prison sentences threat to Russian journalists.. "fake news" has only been brought into the discussion because of headline editorializing. I have to go back to work and likely cannot reply further but didn't want you to think I ignored you.
FWIW I despise censorship, irregardless of which party it comes from, and can tell we both see a lot of flaws in human nature in general so don't think we are far off in disagreement here. Journalists should be left the fuck alone, certainly.
By the way the "source" I am invoking are MIT scientists for the lab leak theory being plausible https://www.amazon.com/Viral-Search-Covid-19-Alina-Chan-eboo... and when it comes to dissenting views on COVID I am referencing Dr. Robert Malone(holds a patent for mRNA vaccines) and the great barrington declaration https://gbdeclaration.org/ which was created and signed by many Ivy League medical researchers and practitioners about how flawed our strict lockdown measure are.
Hunter Biden has gone on record saying that laptop might have been his.
Don't presume a persons sources without asking first. You strike me as a smart person as well and should check these sources out with an open mind before dismissing them.
> For instance - I disagree with you on the lab leak theory and laptop comments. I understand you feel about them strongly, but I think you are smart and should reconsider the source material for those claims. Further, I feel the way you expressed it was regrettable: "blood on their hands" is unnecessary and inaccurate. You could have phrased that in ways that were more accurate, more effective, and less inflammatory.
Notice what you're doing though. The information content of this is effectively the polite version of "stop being mad and wrong, go read a book."
It contains no actual rebuttal of anything. You present no new facts or reasoning, only an assertion that you disagree which was already implied.
Sorry, I don't have much time to reply but you have a good point.
That is correct and intentional. My core point is that everyone can benefit changing how we disagree and when we choose to disagree. In what you quoted, I was just trying to make the point less abstract with a concrete example. I wasn't trying to be persuasive or reach some sort of resolution. I could have been more effective, thank you.
Social media already has a big problem with filter bubbles. If you go to a place where 99% of people there are one party's partisans and try to rebut their misinformation, you get dogpiled. People insult you and sling baseless accusations of racism, which deters people from attempting to debate when they're highly outnumbered. So any place which has any partisan bias gets an even bigger one until everything is totally polarized.
Platform censorship makes it even worse because the platform's censors will be in one bubble or the other, their censorship decisions will be biased in that direction and push anyone on the other team onto other platforms and we end up with entirely partisan platforms that never talk to each other, and are thereby both highly misinformed about different sets of things.
Again, the blue camp isnt any better here. Did you hear about the very recent Kentucky event? Did you hear about the sketchy "rise of the moors" organisation and that highway event? The "fake news" isnt just biased reporting, but also not reporting events that would challenge the narrative. A small disclosure: I was among those who donated to the Bernie's campaign, yet I reject most of the blue rhetoric.
s/fake news/entertainment exploiting a set of curated insecurities to maximize ad-sales/g
The problem is that most are convinced that it’s all “fake news” and their preferred source is the “least fake”, all while getting pulled deeper down the rabbit hole.
I see the same dynamic with my teenage kids and the YouTubers /etc they watch on topics they’re interested in. They hear something, get overly excited about it, and then fixate/share/etc. I almost feel it’s a part time job to show enough interest to where they’ll talk about it so I can try and help build the reflex of distill out fact/assumption/inference, and reframe narrative to a set of possibilities that for facts. It’s actually been a challenge b/c often things sound stupid if I'm too reductionist and they shut down. But TBH usually sounds stupid b/c it is stupid manufactured drama that sells YouTube ads. Same dynamic whether some Roblox gamer drama, MLB lockout drama, or politics — all “news” eventually optimizes to maximize ad revenue, competing with creative entertainment for attention.
Democrats encourage anarchist militias who openly advocate for violence and arson, try to de-legitimize election results through "Russia-Gate" conspiracies, openly cheered on the fire bombing and attacking of police officers and government buildings(court houses), spread misinformation about the Kyle Rittenhouse despite all expert legal analysis saying they were misinformed.
> try to de-legitimize election results through "Russia-Gate" conspiracies
US intelligence confirmed that Russia tried to swing an election, so this isn't a "conspiracy." As for the rest of your points, those positions were never embraced by mainstream Democrats.
The Mueller report showed some involvement but did not say the election results were illegitimate and there were a large amount of democrats who continue to claim this election result is not legitimate.
(FWIW I don't like trump but I still believe he would have won 2016 with or without Russia, its a cop out to blame Russia for that)
We literally had Democrat senators saying "rioting is the voice of the streets"(AOC), and calling Kyle Rittenhouse a domestic terrorist, whole portions of cities in democrat run cities were given to anarchist militias like in CHAZ and were flippantly calling these groups "peaceful" while they engaged in looting, arson, and attacking police officers.
AOC is famously not a mainstream Democrat (she is to the left of almost the whole party), nor is she a senator. And even if she were either of those things, the single line you quote, out of context and without citation, does not show that she is in any way equivalent to the crazier elements of the Republican party (c.f. Marjorie Taylor Greene).
This is one of many incidents of government agencies that run amok and often unchecked. If the US public were to be informed of the true scale of the American intelligence apparatus it would destroy the US's public image for decades.
Any evidence that democrats “operate the antifa terrorist network”? There were riots in Portland after Biden was elected, it seems antifa are mostly anarchists and not a fan of the current Democratic Party either.
The expectation for conservatives / republican politicians is that a failure to disavow any problematic group is perceived as endorsement. So I can just as easily beg the question, why haven't more Democrats come out and disavowed antifa?
Remember the aftermath of the Portland protests? The damage and loss of business were estimated to be $23M. It's not the same as what you're describing from the far right, but it's also pretty bad, just in a different way.
If you only apply 'guilt by association' to your opponents, but not to yourself and your tribe, then your worldview will be built on a foundation of cheap rhetorical tricks.
Remember when Hillary's mentor (Mr. Byrd) was a former KKK Grand Dragon (and Democrat Senator)? Or when that democrat attempted to assassinate a dozen Republican lawmakers on a baseball field? How about the one who killed five cops in Dallas? Or the ones who engaged in (or cheered on) the 2020 riots that did billions of dollars in damage (including a months-long attack on a Federal courthouse in Portland, complete with firebombing!)?
All of this finger pointing bullshit is a distraction, intended to scare stupid people to the polls.
Byrd entered congress while the south was still segregated.
Not to excuse his actions at earlier times in his life, but by the time he was a “mentor” to Hillary Clinton he had renounced racism and and segregation and was the longest serving member in the US senate and an expert on its procedures.
Pointing out that the Democratic Party was full of southern segregationists in the early 20th century is pure laziness.
Additionally, the federal courthouse wasn’t “firebombed” some groups broke in and set fires. It was violent and destructive but you’re vastly exaggerating the scale.
dude just stop. Idiots on the left. Idiots on the right. Stop being a tool.. because honestly, only a brainwashed tool would truly believe the problem only exists with The OTHER group.
As a non-american, I can see how some actions of the left seem to be a bit over the top and as things escalated might really got a bit extreme too. But is a push against racism, for gender equality, LGBT rights really wrong? Do you notice, how much people, who stand for those issues, get attacked in the public discussion?
The thing is, those are all non-issues now, and have been for a while. The reason the MSM is known as fake news in the US, is that they keep trying to push these as current issues, even though they've been settled.
This is complete nonsense. I can easily think of an example from the past week where a Republican controlled state is attacking transgender children and their parents to score political points with the Republican base. It is absurd to claim that equal rights in America is a settled topic or a non-issue.
That's a truck-load of bullshit. Texas Gov. Abbot is pushing an anti-LGBTQ+ agenda in the open. He and his pals are flat-out pushing anti-trans agendas that accuse parents of children seeking gender-affirming treatment of child abuse.
The Texas right-leaning lege just got through passing a bill that was designed to be hard to assail in the courts that hands out money for turning in anyone who assist someone in seeking an abortion, robbing people of their rights over their own bodily autonomy.
Florida gov't is trying to pass bills that prohibit talking about gender orientation and identity, racism, and equality in the workplace and classroom.
This isn't a "non-issue". This isn't "settled". We're still fighting for our rights and freedoms, and those of our children. I'll be damned if I'm gonna let some greedy nutjob politician deny my children (or anyone's children) the right to be who they are or want to be.
If they don't like gender transitioning, then they shouldn't transition, but don't tell me or mine that they can't!
“ He and his pals are flat-out pushing anti-trans agendas that accuse parents of children seeking gender-affirming treatment of child abuse.”
Isn’t this, by definition, a very debatable topic with pros and cons that have to be weighed. Where one comes down, I.e. their preference for policy on this, will be informed by their background and biases.
E.g. it isn’t entirely obvious that we should give minors, who legally can not consent to many activities, access to ethically untestable non-reversible treatments.
These issues are actually the purpose of politics. E.g. it is a feature of the system that there is debate on implementing the preferences of a democracy.
The treatment administered to minors is reversible.
Studies show that gender-affirming treatments and care can reduce thoughts of suicide and self-harm.
No one is pushing these treatments on unwilling minors. To take away peoples' rights to these treatments is unconscionable. And to direct people to be charged or investigated for child abuse is even more so. It's just another point that puts people in fear of the authorities.
> But is a push against racism, for gender equality, LGBT rights really wrong?
No, of course it isn't. But many people I know, myself included, are afraid to speak out against what we see as new forms of hate levied in their name. The CHAZ or the hijacking of this brutal war against Ukraine into a commentary on care only being bound to race or the evacuation of cisgendered women and men from their own bodies by way of language so that everyone is "just" a vagina-haver or penis-possessor are just a few examples of where I see these pushes become the very weapons of the forces its proponents profess to fight.
> Do you notice, how much people, who stand for those issues, get attacked in the public discussion?
As a liberal (or what was liberal 10 years ago), I mostly notice how much people who stand for these issues attack others who have a different opinion and try to silence them.
This is the first time I'm giving voice to some of these deeply unpopular opinions in the new liberal left spaces like HN, for which I fully expect to be downvoted and potentially flagged into oblivion.
I don't think the oft-violent rhetoric and deplatforming crusades of the new left is the right way of effecting positive change on the world.
If most "christian rights" knew my beliefs about the religion, they'd burn me at stake. I do think that the Bible has a lot of wisdom in it, but a lot of bs too.
“ But is a push against racism, for gender equality, LGBT rights really wrong?”
Isn’t it an issue of framing? E.g. it appears that some think that the solution to racism appears to be implementing institutional racism indefinitely until racism is cured.
This is distracting from the real issue of class warfare which is what psyops relies on to divide prior arguing past each other.
> But is a push against racism, for gender equality, LGBT rights really wrong?
Framing it this way is misleading. "push back" that entails violent, harmful and illegal behaviour maybe wrong with total irrelevance to what you are trying to achieve.
> Do you notice, how much people, who stand for those issues, get attacked in the public discussion?
No, I see the opposite, to the extend that extreme virtue-signalling on these topics is met with no opposition, because no-one wants to be labelled an *-ist.
Neither party is racist, neither party is sexist, except for the fringe minority of both. They disagree on approach and methods, and twist that into believing their opponent is evil to the core.
Democrats think Republicans are evil racists for trying to shut down diversity mandates. Republicans think Democrats are evil racists for trying to impose diversity mandates. They both want to eliminate racism, but their worldviews cause conflict on how to do that.
There are some legitimate fundamental differences on LGBT rights, I'll admit. Not so much on LG, but as you get further into the abbreviation, it increases.
Or for a more concrete example, look at how both Republicans and Democrats are treating Julian Assange. Investigative journalism and whistleblowing are under attack by all political factions and by the justice system, today. We cannot treat anti-free-press authoritarianism in the West as an "early stage" or tomorrow's problem.
Julian Assange isn't a journalist though. He was a contractor trusted with protected information which he then publicized. There's a big difference between a journalist finding and publishing information, and a mole in our government sharing our secrets with people.
And that's ignoring the whole rape thing with Assange.
My understanding is the fake rape charges were dropped. I expect it could've been an attempt at character assassination by certain governments with a long history of this kind of attack.
There's no equivalence here. Russia has assassinated about 50 journalists under Putin and imprisoned/beaten many more. They have a very tight stranglehold on press freedom.
But yes, we need to take it extremely seriously in the West and fight against any and all encroachments so that we don't slide further towards authoritarianism. Recent trends have been concerning.
Chelsea Manning may be a better comparison since the US actually sentenced her, but even then that was about a leak with classified information rather than just punishing the press for being critical of the government. And she was arrested and served time (7 years?) and then got out, while coming out as transgendered (imagine going through that in Russian prison). It's not ideal, but it could be taken as an example of how much better it is in the US also.
> In 2010, Assange gained unauthorized access to a government computer system of a NATO country. In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack.
> Assange conspired with Army Intelligence Analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a password hash to a classified U.S. Department of Defense computer.
If that is the height of his crimes, then it's no comparison to the extent US (or whomever) went to frame him for: sexual assault (coerced charges), fabricated hacking conspiracy (from a protected pedofile at that), or just about anything.
Note that even in the quoted allegations he pretty much didn't actually even do much at all. I don't know Assange, but I don't have doubts about who to side with.
I wish people would stop trying to remake Assange into a journalist, he’s not, Pompeo was correct when he called Wikileaks an intelligence agency.
It’s especially sad trying to cite him in this context, as we already know that he censors and threatens whistleblowers who ask him to publish documents on Putin.
Coincidentally enough, he has signed a contract with Russian state tv for his own tv show. He’s also been confronted about these facts and doesn’t bother denying any of it.
From the center of strategic and international studies. It describes how the same ideology (white male christian) worldview is connected to Putin and Trump, and how the West is viewed as decadent through the moral lens of the fundamentalist churches in both the US and the Russian orthodox church.
white male christian is not an ideology. The first is a skin color, the second is a gender, the third is a religion. Pretending that you throw those three things together creates some coherent and common ideology is not logical thought
No, and maybe I could have worded that better. But that’s part of their identity and what they rally around. If you read the article you would see what I mean.
From the article “Here traditionalism and identity are fused together such that disrupting one threatens the other. Any demographic change (particularly immigration from Muslim-majority and non-White countries, exacerbated in the public perception by low birth rates) is viewed as a direct challenge to identity and tradition.”
So maybe the better word is “strategic conversatism” as per the article.
I think Trump's praises may increase his chances for Putin to accept Trump's proposals. IIRC Trump wrote a book about making deals that's why I believe it.
Besides that I think that Putin made genuinely smart strategical steps to ensure that nobody will get between him and Ukraine... How it will turn out we yet have to see.
Cornering a leader with nuclear capabilities benefits nobody and can get dangerous, leaving him with nothing to lose. I think Trump wanted to use Russia to counter China.
Curious what you're citing here? The american right obviously has an extremely robust selection of sources to choose from in every medium there is. You can read Breitbart or watch Fox, you can find multiple radio stations with talking heads in every market. You can find fellow travellers on Facebook or 4chan (or right here). The biggest podcast in the nation pushes a mostly conservative line.
I mean, I'm sure that somewhere there's been a terrible abuse and someone got fired or whatever. It's a big country. But, I'm equally sure that whatever happened, you know about it because the news was delivered to you by conservative media.
The US is fine. We had an authoritarian scare for a while, but the system held.
He never said he was, he said Rogan "pushes a mostly conservative line" which from my understanding seems to be true, at least regarding all major issues in the past year or so.
Avowed leftist here: Let's just agree that both the Dems and Repubs ban/seek to stifle opinions they don't agree with. Someone wants to ban Maus, someone else wants to ban Joe Rogan. Both parties want power at the expense of "freedom".
Censorship is part of existing as part of a society though. There are people who seek to actively hurt others using words and media, and the whole idea of a state is to (pretend?) to act in the common good. At this point the internet gives everyone a platform (look at us right now, there's a near 0% chance we would have ever spoken in physical real life) and makes a TON more noise that makes finding the signal harder, which means both sides can find plenty of examples of the other behaving badly to "whatabout" whenever someone points out their own bad behavior.
TL;dr- Everyone wants censorship, even if they pretend they don't, so let's not pretend it's actually either side. If anything, your point just proves that Dems/leftists might have more power in the US to influence these things, but that doesn't prove they have more desire to influence them than the right.
> Avowed leftist here: Let's just agree that both the Dems and Repubs ban/seek to stifle opinions they don't agree with. Someone wants to ban Maus, someone else wants to ban Joe Rogan.
What kind of an argument is this? The only common thread between the two is the word "banning".
Banning Joe Rogan is because he spreads misinformation about vaccines. He is causing lots of people to die, and the pandemic is longer because of it.
Banning a book about the holocaust prevents people learning about the atrocities of the past.
Shouting fire in a theater when there is no fire and expressing concern over the potentially dangerous side effects of a vaccine are different. The previous is an outright lie about a non-event while the later has some truth.
Its factually true that people have had severe adverse reactions and died from the vaccine. He interviewed genuine credentialed experts like Dr. Robert Malone on the potential dangers of the Covid vaccine.
I am in favor of the Covid vaccine and disagree with Joe but he's allowed to express his dissenting opinions.
Podcasts are not medical advise and should not be treated as such.
>> There is an extremely important difference between these two examples. The first was the government forcing school libraries to remove books
Talk about fake news. Maus wasn't banned.
What news sources are you reading that tell you the government forced school libraries to remove Maus? You need to stop reading them, they are misleading you. Find better news sources.
What would you call news outlets like MSNBC spreading lies about the Kyle Rittenhouse case? An honest mistake? Or calling the lab leak theory racist?
Notice how this works?
When a news source that is aligned with your political party gets it wrong "its ok" but when its a new source that is not aligned with your party its "spreading misinformation".
There is no objective standard for misinformation so trying to say disagreement and misinformation are not the same depends entirely on what is the issue being discussed. Any issue with ambiguity can be dismissed far too easily by just claiming it "misinformation".
I guess your assumption is that everyone left-aligned watches (and agrees with) MSNBC. That isn't true. I certainly don't watch it.
There are reliable news outlets. Don't assume that just because an outlet has a political skew in the direction opposite from your preferred one that everyone you disagree with must watch and endorse it. That's a strawman.
Its a strawman that you are introducing by saying:
> I suspect what you mean by this is "outlets claiming to report 'news' but actually spreading misinformation".
> That's quite different from "disagreement".
I am pointing out that there is not a large difference between what you say is misinformation and disagreement. Many news outlets get things wrong and are guilty of allowing political bias to steer them towards saying things that are not true. You can't just call something misinformation because you disagree with it.
Nearly every news outlet in this country has gotten things wrong at some point and a tenuous definition of misinformation could be used to make them all look bad.
Citing something as "misinformation" is often a strawman argument and a word used to dismiss viewpoints people do not agree with on any issue that has some ambiguity, including the lab leak theory.
I'll stop laughing when Fox News is no longer the most watched cable news outlet in the country. A self described entertainment channel, who said under oath "no rational person would believe the things we say"
I think CNN would try to hide under "entertainment" in front of a court of law, but have they actually been dragged in front of a court for lying?
The Hunter Biden Laptop story was openly censored, even when put forward by a journalist with the Post and Biden has admitted that laptop may have been his.
News publications have to decide what is and isn't newsworthy, and it could be that this one just doesn't meet the bar. I know the right really really wants it to finally take off and gather steam, since they invested so much into it. It's a hard pill for them to swallow that HunterBidenLaptop just not that interesting or important. Kind of like Hillary's E-mails. At the end of the day nobody really cares about them.
I mean, if I worked in a news room and wanted to publish a story about the president's cousin's roommate's great soup recipe, and the editor says "NO" does that mean I'm being censored?
You asked for examples of censorship and it was given to you.
Irregardless of Greenwald, you can't deny twitter and social media outlets banning a New York Post journalist(and the White House Press Secretary) for sharing that story was not egregious censorship.
Banning articles from journalists is censorship. Period.
Sorry, but I didn't ask for anything upthread. You might have meant to reply to someone else. Trying not to get involved with a flamewar, but it should be noted that there are many possible explanations of a paper's editorial decisions that do not invoke censorship.
To clarify I gave an example of censorship first and it was ignored by you to create a a long winded argument about Greenwald. You never refuted the point that the original story was banned (even before Greenwald was brought up) or that leftist bias may have factored into there choice to not publish that article that turned out to be credible. Intercept is a left bias rated outlet https://www.allsides.com/news-source/intercept a story about potential corruption from a candidates son is not the same thing as a "cousins recipe". That was a distasteful strawman.
I don't know enough about the Hunter Biden Laptop story to know what's true and what's not, but your WSJ link is the opinion section. Can you link to a WSJ article not from the opinion section?
- The DKIM hashes of the emails on the laptop were verified.
- The pictures on the laptop contain him in it doing various illicit activities.
- His business partner came out against him.
- He won't deny its inauthentic, he said it "could be".
- There's a video of him talking to a Russian prostitute saying they stole his laptop and he's worried it'll be used to blackmail his father who is running for President.
I've seen similar stories from nypost. I believe they broke the story but I haven't seen anything from WSJ. Can you post the WSJ articles on the story?
When a media agency internally decides not to publish something it might be biased, but that's generally not considered censorship. Censoring can be biased, but not all bias is censorship.
Russia participates in censorship on a state level with its own state-run media agencies. These things are not equivalent. The Hunter Biden story is widely reported by numerous American media outlets.
> The Hunter Biden story is widely reported by numerous American media outlets.
And that story was banned on social media unfairly(this banning was cheered on by Dems and left leaning folks), even though it turned it to be credible later.
It was egregious censorship is the main point I am making here.
they’re easy categories: government enforced censorship (ie lose your freedom for disobeying) vs private businesses’ editorial discretion (ie just get your news from another company)
Just because you outsource censorship to tech companies to get around the 1A doesn't mean it's not censorship.
The "muh private companies" argument ended long ago when government officials started using it as their main platform and we applied archive rules and prevented Trump from blocking people: https://www.wsj.com/articles/president-trump-cant-block-twit...
You can't have it both ways. Let's investigate why they all decided at once to block it right before the election. Are they coordinating? Let's find out. Seems like an anti-trust issue.
Point is, it's censorship, no matter how much people try to weasel out of it.
Go get the laws changed then, not sure what to tell you if you don’t agree that there are significant differences between the state and private business - free speech as defined by our constitution is rather specific. Complaining about it on the internet won’t change that.
The censorship was Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube blocking it all at once before the election. The media helped by downplaying it and going with the Russian disinformation/hack lie.
Playing semantics over whether omission of truth is bias vs. censorship doesn't make a strong argument.
How were they right? the story has been confirmed to be legitimate by organizations like politico and the guardian. Hunter Biden himself admitted the laptop may have been his.
"Rotten" because it looks bad and goes against your bias doesn't make it worthy of censorship. Social media censoring a NY post journalist over this was censorship. Period.
What I believe to be true is not my point, its that the story was credible enough to be discussed and should not have been censored. I would feel the same if these accusations had been levied at one of trumps family members as well.
I literally said that its a story worth covering and linked to a story from the guardian that confirms this and goes deeper on his business dealings being potentially shady(and brings up how the laptop fits into this, there was potentially damaging evidence on it). My personal belief is not relevant here, I just feel its a story worth examining.
Your not being honest with your motives to deny the guardian stories points or the fact that article even exists, do you not want to admit there is something potentially shady happening?
I don't know with 100% certainty either way honestly, I would have wanted the story to be covered if it was any other politician (and don't like trump, glad he lost tbh) so I am not sure what bone your trying to pick at.
(this comment goes deeper into what was potentially found if you are interested https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30548675)
"We're protecting Germany, we're protecting France, we're protecting all of these countries. And then numerous of the countries go out and make a pipeline deal with Russia where they're paying billions of dollars into the coffers of Russia.
"So we're supposed to protect you against Russia and you pay billions of dollars to Russia and I think that's very inappropriate"
"I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, “This is genius.” Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. (sarcastic)
So, Putin is now saying, “It’s independent,” a large section of Ukraine. I said, “How smart is that?” And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force… We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy… I know him very well. Very, very well."
It's weird how people don't seem to understand. He's saying that Putin is a threat and a liar, and that this campaign is based on a clever deception.
Obviously it wasn't as clever as Putin hoped, because nobody in the whole world except a few Russian HN posters believe it. But saying that your opponent has a clever plan does not mean you're on the opponent's side.
Prime example of the effects of biased reporting ^
There's a difference between having LEGITIMATE business long BEFORE your dad has power vs. getting put on a board of a corrupt energy company WHILE your dad is overseeing the country relations as VP. One is capitalism, one is nepotism.
But all that being said, the statement "they get most all of their money from Russia" is wrong at face value. Their businesses do not get the majority of revenue from Russia. Back that statement up with a source so it can be torn apart.
"It shall be prohibited for operators to broadcast or to enable, facilitate or otherwise contribute to broadcast, any content by the legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex XV, including through transmission or distribution by any means such as cable, satellite, IP-TV, internet service providers, internet video-sharing platforms or applications, whether new or pre-installed"
Those channels were toxic propaganda, psyops designed to divide and weaken Russia's enemies. Such things are never tolerated in war. I do think this is a period in human history where we're going to have to let go of some naive notions pertaining to "freedom of speech".
"Fake News" comes in many forms. Hyperbole and playing fast and loose with words like "waged a war" plays into this. The media has NEVER been particularly friendly to the President. Even George Washington himself lamented how the press was slandering his administration with falsehoods.
What did this war look like? What actions did the government actually take to fight journalists covering POTUS unfavorably? Because I just remember an incredible amount of pearl clutching by journalists about how dangerous it is to say bad things about the press and how democracy would die in darkness if their credibility was questioned. It never actually stopped them from continuing act the same way.
I think it's useful to distinguish between what a President says, and what he uses his executive powers to do. As far as what he did, I think the most impactful was probably drastically reducing press briefings in which the free press can directly challenge the administration.
It’s also good to remember that Donald Trump is no longer the president, all of the fake news that he didn’t like still made it to the public, and none of the journalists he didn’t like are in jail, or killed.
Now that is out of the way, should we switch our focus back to how Russia suppress any domestic news about the ongoing Ukriane war? Or “special operation” as it’s only allowed to be called?
This is bullshit. Most American news (left and right) is Entertainment and in that sense it IS actually quite fake. And that's to say nothing of the times MSM is outright lying. Trump calling out the fake news as fake was probably one of the best things he did with his time as president. At least some people woke up as a result. Before Trump, people would view publications like NYT and WaPo as fundamentally different than Fox News. Now, thankfully, many more people realize they are exactly the same. If anything, Fox News presents itself more honestly as news entertainment and NYT is more deceptive.
I agree. If we are being completely honest, the last 3 presidents attacked important information from getting out to the public in varying forms and degrees.
> If we are being completely honest, the last 3 presidents attacked important information from getting out to the public in varying forms and degrees.
If we are being completely honest, we won't pretend the last three (whether you mean Obama, Trump, Biden or Bush, Obama, Trump) were special in that regard.
Any forum with a substantial amount of an left/right leaning group will have people wanting to jail/punish journalists.
Describing media outlets he didn't like as "a war against .. media" is sensationalist. Saying this is "the same authoritarianism in different stages" is the same as saying getting angry is the same as genocide - "same anger in different stages" which is what ahs given rise to the draconian "literally Hitler" attitude to any dissent; This in itself is totalitarian.
Your comparison is absurd. I'm sorry, but while Trump was often hostile to the media, the media and almost all major news sources (especially liberal-oriented ones) gave the hostility right back, in spades, openly and with no real threat to life or liberty for the editors and journalists involved. Trump made a lot of noise about authoritarian measures and personal wishes but if anything, did less than some previous presidents to actually try muzzling the media or journalists. I repeat, he was if anything the most heavily media-criticized president in recent history.
You then claim that this is the "same authoritarianism" as that of Putin's Russia, where the press is firmly muzzled, where you can and will go to prison for in any way openly criticizing the United Russia Party or Putin himself and where reporters or political opponents are regularly, frequently murdered even abroad for going against the grain of Putin's narratives too often.
No, these are not cases of different stages, they're cases of entirely different worlds. Trump's authoritarian noises were mostly just noises and sloppy backlash. Putin's authoritarianism is the real thing.
No one is innocent here. On Spanish media they dared to use videogame images (Arma 3) as real footage, ditto with a Chinese civil explosion (causality/accident) as a Russia bombing strike.
Look what happened in Ukraine. Among neonazis, they supported this:
Ukraine's 2017 education law will make Ukrainian the required language of study in state schools from the fifth grade on, although it allows instruction in other languages as a separate subject,[65][66][67] to be phased in in 2023.[68] Since 2017, the Hungary–Ukraine relations rapidly deteriorated over the issue of the Hungarian minority in Ukraine.[69] According to the New Europe:
The latest row between Kiev and Budapest comes on the heels of a bitter dispute over a decision by Ukraine's parliament – the Verkhovna Rada – to pass a legislative package on education that bars primary education to all students in any language but Ukrainian. The move has been widely condemned by the international community as needlessly provocative as it forces the historically bilingual population of 45 million people who use Russian and Ukrainian interchangeably as mother tongues to become monolingual. Furthermore, the large minorities of Hungarians, Jews, Poles, Tatars, Gypsies, Romanians, Caucasians, and Gagauz generally speak and receive some formal or informal education in their own national languages, all of which will be adversely affected by the new draconian language statute.
Also:
Lviv Oblast
Unian reported that "A ban on the use of cultural products, namely movies, books, songs, etc., in the Russian language in the public has been introduced" in the Lviv Oblast in September 2018.[71] Critics[who?] called the law ill-defined, illegal, and unconstitutional, and a successful January 2019 court challenge by the Chuhuiv Human Rights Group was dismissed on technical grounds in May, and could lead to a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights.[72]
They tried to ban the public usage of Russian in Ukraine.
OFC, I agree. But here no one is trully innocent and there were really borderline nazi laws on non Ukranian languages that even the Francoist Spain didn't have until we put the fascist regime back to the post war era and not the one post US relations.
Hope the war ends soon, the "rebel" provinces gets a referendum and if they opt to be part of Russia, they should have a clause to be Russian AND part of the European Union. Everyone wins. Russia too, even if it "hates" the West they need us the Europeans economically far more than a war mongering USA.
One little step towards fascism does not justify the massive leap towards fascism that is entailed by an autocratic regime like Putin's invading their neighbors.
I’ve finished state with Ukrainian as a primary language of instruction, being a Russian speaker. That was long time ago, more than 15 years.
To be honest, it is not a big deal, you use both languages daily, you watch movies in both languages and so on.
I also don’t get “among neo-nazis” line.
In any case language question is more a Russian propaganda talking point, I don’t see it being major topic in the Ukrainian political life.
1. It is just a proposal: “The proposed legislation, which is supported by Vyacheslav Volodin, the parliamentary speaker, a close ally of President Putin, could be discussed by parliament as early as this week, state television reported.”
2. Another wild proposal, to forcibly conscript protestors, was shot down by Kremlin:
"Fake news" isn't a metaphor, it's a thought-terminating cliché. It literally literally means the news is a sham, not genuine.
To your credit "to" in the headline here could be considered misleading. It implies "[If the proposal by Volodin, a close ally of Putin, is successful] Russia to punish ‘fake news’".
I was very surprised to see virtually all hacking groups declare war on russia over this war. So many APT groups are Russian but they do oppose the war. The expected cyber war is all Russia's to deal with.
The actual war isn't going well at all. Their reg troops are driving by wrecked russian equipment destroying their morale.
So they can't deal with reality, send everyone who dissents to prison.
SECAM had somewhat better colour accuracy, but was difficult and expensive to work with (at least until digital editing showed up, but it was a bit late by then...)
Metastasis of the Cold War, this is what it is. Like the world wars are connected, this war is also connected to CW. USSR did not disintegrate enough, ideologically.
The constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees freedom of speech and prohibits censorship. I seem to recall the Soviet Union had a pretty spiffy constitution, too. The United States certainly did, during the Palmer Raids, during McCarthyism.
Constitutions alone do nothing. If we're not on guard, collectively, we could easily end up without freedom of speech and press in practice.
Probably in the EU, but that stuff gets squirreled in through private institutions here. Information clearing-houses like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. will take it upon themselves after encouragement from the media and the government.
Not sure why, but I feel like there’s some difference between being blocked by these media outlets and being sent to prison for 15 years and/or experiencing a kafkaesque process where your whole life is in shambles.
I’m sorry, but that’s a bizarre remark. Hitler can be held accountable for millions of deaths, in all kinds of inhuman ways. Putin is nowhere near that and I cannot see that happen either.
Putin is looking to expand his country's borders quite similarly to Hitler, regardless of economic or human costs. It's up to rest of the world to show him the only thing he respects, which is power.
If you have access to all other country's news sources, and they're all contradicting your govt... what are the chances your govt is right and the rest of the world is wrong?
Ripping a page from Hong Kong's "national security" law under the PRC, which resulted in Apple Daily publisher Jimmy Lai being sentenced to prison (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56770567). The law even goes after people not living in Hong Kong:
The wording of the Hong Kong national security law asserts jurisdiction over people who are not residents of Hong Kong and have never even set foot there. This means anyone on Earth, regardless of nationality or location, can technically be deemed to have violated this law and face arrest and prosecution if they are in a Chinese jurisdiction, even for transit.
300 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 456 ms ] threadhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5u1u5IuLec
https://youtu.be/e4an0MlF27k?t=11397
Twitter and facebook are being blocked. Youtube and group chats in telegram/signal/etc are the only things left right now.
7670 people have been detained so far.
I hope the citizens realize it can be just as bad in the West if we give governments and corporations more control
This is the silver lining as people on Reddit are reporting a marked decrease in right wing trolling in all their social media
Does anyone know of any organizations studying the ongoing levels of creation and engagement with that type of content?
https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/hamilton-dashboard/
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/03/world/europe/russia-ukrai...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30550572
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN3z3eSVG7A
The YT comment section actually has a few gems too.
Fitting, because the Reagan administration didn't realize at the time that they were accidently convincing the increasingly old men leading the USSR that the US was preparing a first strike on the evil empire.
I don't find the anti-semitism charge very credible, he speaks out against anti-semitism very strongly in both the Gulag Archipelago, and several essays. He also claimed that an anti-semitic essay attributed to him was a hatched job by the KGB, which seems at least possible. I also stand by my claim that he was a brilliant writer. I think if you try to take everything in his descriptions of the Gulag system as literal fact, you'll find historical discrepancies, but his work isn't meant to be wholly historic, but rather more expansive.
When he published it he spoke of Jewish friends praising Russian silence on the history he covered. This is kind of the same thing. There is a really unfortunate tendency by certain groups to equivocate criticism of historical Jewish actions with criticism of the Jewish people, and the word antisemitic has lost almost all meaning as a result. Reaction to that book is far from the sole example.
It is possible to criticize the behavior of certain historical Jews without filling your heart with hate for an entire people and preaching Hitler’s ideologies. That is a nuance that is lost by Jewish people who call others “antisemitic” at the first hint of criticism. That said, however, it is also somewhat fair because the Jewish people have endured unspeakable horrors in a blink of history.
What ones stand out for you? I am relatively ignorant on the subject. Your comment stimulated me to google a bit and I came up with this¹ critical (and currently topical) criticism of him for anti-semitism in which he is accused of blaming Jewish people for playing a leading role in the red terror:
His reported self defense included a reference to the Kiev/Kyiv Cheka (precursors to OGPU and NKVD): 'To explain the actions of the Kiev cheka [secret police] only by the fact that two thirds were Jews, is certainly incorrect."'
1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/25/russia.books
I'm genuinely curious because I've seen this kind of knee-jerk response across many avenues (e.g. x is an antisemite, is hitler, is a facist, is a commie, is a trump supporter) and I don't understand it.
In the medieval era most people participating in European civilization would qualify for the modern definition of antisemitism. Should I simply disregard the good works of writers and thinkers from that time period and geography?
If anything I am pro-semite but it's a struggle for me to grasp why the antisemitism of an individual should affect my opinion of their work or ideas. Even though I don't approve of their opinions regarding a people group it simply does not follow that I ought to dismiss everything they have ever said.
If Solzhenitsyn writes a brilliant but mostly exaggerated and fictitious account of Communist Russia, do you really want to celebrate this achievement? I do not and that's why I posted.
It's not just my standards. I could be wrong here, but I think most people would find her brilliant. That's part of why her fraudulent behavior was so successful.
Not sure you meant to, but you've dodged my main question. Why should I factor in his antisemitism (alleged or not) when considering his brilliance?
You originally said Solzhenitsyn was antisemitic, now you are claiming he wrote an exaggerated account of Communist Russia. Either or both of those claims may be true. I don't know the veracity of either and I'm not arguing those. I'm asking *why I should disregard his purported brilliance altogether even if those claims are true*?
Washington owned slaves. Edison likely exploited his workers for his own gain. Martin Luther was an antisemite. Nelson Mandela had ties to terrorists. Joan of Arc was a heretic. Theodora was effectively a prostitute at one point. These men and women all did and said things we would not approve of, and yet there are qualities they held and actions they took which we celebrate to this day. I don't see how some corrupt part of their character gives cause to dismiss them entirely.
The broad facts are well supported by what's come out of Soviet archives since the 90s and further details are supported by the Mitrokhin Archive. The surviving Stasi archives also paint a similar picture.
I don't actually see any evidence that his portrayal of life in the Soviet Union was anything but accurate, at least from the perspectives available to him at the time. I'm sure there were a great many possible life experiences, especially for people born after the terror, but the terror too was part of the Soviet experience.
And if you think nobody in America wants to jail journalists and media CEOs, go look at any forum with a substantial amount of Republicans talking freely.
The are not separate phenomenon at different stages, they are a global, coordinated group. They were coordinated by the massive cash flows coordinated by a small group in Russia. The use coordinated tactics, in concert with each other.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27920739
No, but people like to self-censor sometimes ;)
Trump's commentary on the violence against the press: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/19/media/trump-velshi-msnbc-shot...
>“They can’t stand the fact that this Administration has done more than virtually any other Administration in its first 2yrs,” he continued. “They are truly the ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”
(https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/437610-trump-cal...)
And surely media can be bad, can harm people, can lie, but "ENEMY" is interesting.
You can make a good case that the guy damaged the discourse and eroded trust in institutions, but news and journalism have flourished in recent years.
I agree that local police assaulting journalists is awful, they should be fired and prosecuted. And I'm aware that Trump made some dumb ass comments praising that shit, but it doesn't constitute a war on the press. You're talking about some isolated disparate instances perpetrated by unrelated local police departments during a summer of protests and riots. That isn't an act of the executive branch of the federal government. The US doesn't have a strong presidential system like say for example France. The us president has virtually 0 control over any individual police departments other than threatening to yank some drug war funding.
There do exist levers the executive branch could pull to attack the press, e.g. via the FCC or by having the DOJ prosecute sources. The Trump admin didn't do those things despite all of his bluster. He basically ended the policy of aggressively prosecuting leakers and spent all day engaging with the media. Sure he's a shit bag who did crimes, but the war on the press stuff is overblown.
Yes, it's an administrative motte & bailey. Police support, individual and organizational, for Trump is incredibly high and their loyalty to him transcends official channels. He's explicitly endorsed violence against journalists, brutality towards suspects, and celebrated the execution of Michael Reinoehl. While he didn't have direct control over the state police, he spoke directly to them frequently, and encouraged all of this.
That doesn't really mean anything on the ground. The situation in the US is 100% different. Some dumb-ass president can love authoritarian shit all they want, but don't have a ton of actual power to lock up journalists. Russia just today shut down its last non-government owned TV station. That just can't happen in the US legally, and the courts are quite protective of speech and property here. The Trump years saw numerous cases of supposedly friendly judges telling him to fuck off. And the few avenues he did have to legally attack journalists, like prosecuting their sources, he didn't use unlike the previous administration.
Frankly he's just a stupid demagogue, and a symptom of the erosion of trust in institutions. But he didn't wage war on the press. THere's no evidence to support that outside of his bluster. He belongs in jail, but not for this.
As if it's wrong to point out that tweeting and a 15 year jail sentence are not equivalent.
I can't understand what this means... are there really Russian vote-bots here or something?
There's a clear intent to derail and muffle.
Welcome to the world of Russian digital propaganda machine.
They even have puppet accounts arguing with each other, as was discovered by Russian media.
Empty condemnation of Russia while we simultaneously prosecute the publisher of information which helps us decide whether we are behaving in an immoral manner is not merely hypocritical: it's corrosive of the fundamentals of our society.
Right now the Afghans, Iraqis and Syrians that we murdered and the Yemenis that we are helping murder make condemnation of the Russians not just odd, but erodes all possibility of working in a fairer world.
However bringing up Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria (where Russia is inflaming the situation too), and Yemen is whataboutism. The discussion was about Russia's shitty record on press freedom.
But if we are trying to dig into the current conflict, the US hasn't invaded anyone for territorial expansion in a long fucking time. Russia has recently invaded Ukraine three times, Chechnya twice, and Georgia.
The US is deeply disruptive to any of that happening because it opens the door to the MiniMe despots being able to claim that spending stupid amounts of GDP on weapons and having a "strong leader" is the only thing which will see them safe from being invaded "not for territorial expansion" during a "long fucking time".
That's why it is appropriate, relevant and not simply whataboutism.
Russia and other states are worse than the USA because they need to be in order to claw their way up the dungheap piled up by US foreign policy. And there is little inherent in US norms or culture which would prevent similar anti-democratic and anti-liberal punishments. To back to the OP: these are all shades of authoritarianism and we see calls all over the media and this very forum in favor of censorship, war and other stupidities.
Don't kid yourself, this isn't whataboutism, it's the very subject under discussion: Russia is violating international agreements and norms and in part this is because the USA has shat all over those for a very long time.
I'm a liberal and would like to point out that fellow liberals say the same about conservatives. We're wasting energy and making enemies fighting a narrative warfare, and it's frankly very stupid.
Jail the their protestors, but not our own. Deplatform their voices and curtail their free speech, but not our own. It's the exact same behavior in both sides, yet both parties rush in to say how they're different and morally correct.
We need to mend ties, not strain them further. We're becoming too polarized, and that's exactly what authoritarians that eye the end of Democracy and its influence want. We're focused on fighting our petty squabbles instead of positioning ourselves in the global sphere.
If you think any of our manufactured crises are even in the same order of magnitude as what Ukraine is facing right now, then they're already winning.
My worry isn't in owning or being owned by the other party. It's that Democracy is shown to be less effective, that free speech is put in a box, and that we end the century in shackles. No future under those pretenses is worth looking forward to.
What I fear most is a return to the historical mean - where the vast majority are mere peasants. Ignorant, and systematically oppressed, restrained, and exploited.
But this is not a left/right political issue. That is incidental. The social exploit of this foreign operational is orthogonal to political ideology and both side stand to suffer substantially. Trump's lack of conservative ideology bona fides are well documented.
If there's one thing Democrats and Republicans agree on, it's that tech isn't censoring the things they want censored.
(note to mods: after debate, the answer was 0, plz no rate limtz)
Someday, I'll come for repayment.
I notice that Democrats aren't forming white supremacist militias, plotting to kidnap state governors, attacking Congress specifically to overturn the results of a national election, etc.
Remember the accusations of racism that were used to shut down the lab leak theory? Or the demands to censor scientists with any dissenting viewpoints over Covid? The cover up of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal that resulted in journalists from the Post being banned?
The "war on disinformation" their obsessed with is not any different from a "war on fake news". Censorship is a tool of cowards and there are plenty of cowards in both parties that will use it to shut down any dissenting view points.
Letting them scape-goat and demonize unchecked doesn't help anything either.
For instance - I disagree with you on the lab leak theory and laptop comments. I understand you feel about them strongly, but I think you are smart and should reconsider the source material for those claims. Further, I feel the way you expressed it was regrettable: "blood on their hands" is unnecessary and inaccurate. You could have phrased that in ways that were more accurate, more effective, and less inflammatory.
Everyone is literally less intelligent, less capable of rational decision making, and more susceptible to manipulation when they are angry. I have certainly been guilty of this before, and I am just trying to share some of what I have learned.
One final comment: one thing that all social media including HN could do is remove user-visible up and downvotes. It engages the brain in a similar way to gambling (https://www.brainfacts.org/diseases-and-disorders/addiction/...) and creates self-reinforcing conflict that can be exploited.
I don't see how pointing how both parties are guilty of engaging in censorship is wrong. I am advocating for the position that censorship is a tool used unfairly by both parties when they are given the chance, I don't like conservatives or republicans either for how they treated Edward Snowden and Juliane Assange.
Hunter Biden has gone on record saying that laptop might have been his.
Don't presume a persons sources without asking first. You strike me as a smart person as well and should check these sources out with an open mind before dismissing them.
Notice what you're doing though. The information content of this is effectively the polite version of "stop being mad and wrong, go read a book."
It contains no actual rebuttal of anything. You present no new facts or reasoning, only an assertion that you disagree which was already implied.
That is correct and intentional. My core point is that everyone can benefit changing how we disagree and when we choose to disagree. In what you quoted, I was just trying to make the point less abstract with a concrete example. I wasn't trying to be persuasive or reach some sort of resolution. I could have been more effective, thank you.
Social media already has a big problem with filter bubbles. If you go to a place where 99% of people there are one party's partisans and try to rebut their misinformation, you get dogpiled. People insult you and sling baseless accusations of racism, which deters people from attempting to debate when they're highly outnumbered. So any place which has any partisan bias gets an even bigger one until everything is totally polarized.
Platform censorship makes it even worse because the platform's censors will be in one bubble or the other, their censorship decisions will be biased in that direction and push anyone on the other team onto other platforms and we end up with entirely partisan platforms that never talk to each other, and are thereby both highly misinformed about different sets of things.
lol, Rise of the Moors super invested in universal healthcare and social safety nets now?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say supposed sovereign citizens aren't very active in local party politics.
The problem is that most are convinced that it’s all “fake news” and their preferred source is the “least fake”, all while getting pulled deeper down the rabbit hole.
I see the same dynamic with my teenage kids and the YouTubers /etc they watch on topics they’re interested in. They hear something, get overly excited about it, and then fixate/share/etc. I almost feel it’s a part time job to show enough interest to where they’ll talk about it so I can try and help build the reflex of distill out fact/assumption/inference, and reframe narrative to a set of possibilities that for facts. It’s actually been a challenge b/c often things sound stupid if I'm too reductionist and they shut down. But TBH usually sounds stupid b/c it is stupid manufactured drama that sells YouTube ads. Same dynamic whether some Roblox gamer drama, MLB lockout drama, or politics — all “news” eventually optimizes to maximize ad revenue, competing with creative entertainment for attention.
Democrats encourage anarchist militias who openly advocate for violence and arson, try to de-legitimize election results through "Russia-Gate" conspiracies, openly cheered on the fire bombing and attacking of police officers and government buildings(court houses), spread misinformation about the Kyle Rittenhouse despite all expert legal analysis saying they were misinformed.
US intelligence confirmed that Russia tried to swing an election, so this isn't a "conspiracy." As for the rest of your points, those positions were never embraced by mainstream Democrats.
(FWIW I don't like trump but I still believe he would have won 2016 with or without Russia, its a cop out to blame Russia for that)
We literally had Democrat senators saying "rioting is the voice of the streets"(AOC), and calling Kyle Rittenhouse a domestic terrorist, whole portions of cities in democrat run cities were given to anarchist militias like in CHAZ and were flippantly calling these groups "peaceful" while they engaged in looting, arson, and attacking police officers.
The Democrats have the election as either a sham or the most secure election ever based on if their side won.
For the curious, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/whitmer-kidnapping-tri...
Remember when Hillary's mentor (Mr. Byrd) was a former KKK Grand Dragon (and Democrat Senator)? Or when that democrat attempted to assassinate a dozen Republican lawmakers on a baseball field? How about the one who killed five cops in Dallas? Or the ones who engaged in (or cheered on) the 2020 riots that did billions of dollars in damage (including a months-long attack on a Federal courthouse in Portland, complete with firebombing!)?
All of this finger pointing bullshit is a distraction, intended to scare stupid people to the polls.
Not to excuse his actions at earlier times in his life, but by the time he was a “mentor” to Hillary Clinton he had renounced racism and and segregation and was the longest serving member in the US senate and an expert on its procedures.
Pointing out that the Democratic Party was full of southern segregationists in the early 20th century is pure laziness.
Additionally, the federal courthouse wasn’t “firebombed” some groups broke in and set fires. It was violent and destructive but you’re vastly exaggerating the scale.
The thing is, those are all non-issues now, and have been for a while. The reason the MSM is known as fake news in the US, is that they keep trying to push these as current issues, even though they've been settled.
That's just not true.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/florida-s-don-t-...
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/judg...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-transgender-care-lawsuit-...
The Texas right-leaning lege just got through passing a bill that was designed to be hard to assail in the courts that hands out money for turning in anyone who assist someone in seeking an abortion, robbing people of their rights over their own bodily autonomy.
Florida gov't is trying to pass bills that prohibit talking about gender orientation and identity, racism, and equality in the workplace and classroom.
This isn't a "non-issue". This isn't "settled". We're still fighting for our rights and freedoms, and those of our children. I'll be damned if I'm gonna let some greedy nutjob politician deny my children (or anyone's children) the right to be who they are or want to be.
If they don't like gender transitioning, then they shouldn't transition, but don't tell me or mine that they can't!
“ He and his pals are flat-out pushing anti-trans agendas that accuse parents of children seeking gender-affirming treatment of child abuse.”
Isn’t this, by definition, a very debatable topic with pros and cons that have to be weighed. Where one comes down, I.e. their preference for policy on this, will be informed by their background and biases.
E.g. it isn’t entirely obvious that we should give minors, who legally can not consent to many activities, access to ethically untestable non-reversible treatments.
These issues are actually the purpose of politics. E.g. it is a feature of the system that there is debate on implementing the preferences of a democracy.
Studies show that gender-affirming treatments and care can reduce thoughts of suicide and self-harm.
No one is pushing these treatments on unwilling minors. To take away peoples' rights to these treatments is unconscionable. And to direct people to be charged or investigated for child abuse is even more so. It's just another point that puts people in fear of the authorities.
Honestly, you're voicing for support of the person you're responding to, here. These aren't "non-issues" as GGP claimed.
But, puberty blockers, the medical treatment under fire, aren't non-reversible.
By your argument chemotherapy is assassination by poison and setting a broken bone is assault.
No, of course it isn't. But many people I know, myself included, are afraid to speak out against what we see as new forms of hate levied in their name. The CHAZ or the hijacking of this brutal war against Ukraine into a commentary on care only being bound to race or the evacuation of cisgendered women and men from their own bodies by way of language so that everyone is "just" a vagina-haver or penis-possessor are just a few examples of where I see these pushes become the very weapons of the forces its proponents profess to fight.
> Do you notice, how much people, who stand for those issues, get attacked in the public discussion?
As a liberal (or what was liberal 10 years ago), I mostly notice how much people who stand for these issues attack others who have a different opinion and try to silence them.
This is the first time I'm giving voice to some of these deeply unpopular opinions in the new liberal left spaces like HN, for which I fully expect to be downvoted and potentially flagged into oblivion.
I don't think the oft-violent rhetoric and deplatforming crusades of the new left is the right way of effecting positive change on the world.
Isn’t it an issue of framing? E.g. it appears that some think that the solution to racism appears to be implementing institutional racism indefinitely until racism is cured.
This is distracting from the real issue of class warfare which is what psyops relies on to divide prior arguing past each other.
Framing it this way is misleading. "push back" that entails violent, harmful and illegal behaviour maybe wrong with total irrelevance to what you are trying to achieve.
> Do you notice, how much people, who stand for those issues, get attacked in the public discussion?
No, I see the opposite, to the extend that extreme virtue-signalling on these topics is met with no opposition, because no-one wants to be labelled an *-ist.
Democrats think Republicans are evil racists for trying to shut down diversity mandates. Republicans think Democrats are evil racists for trying to impose diversity mandates. They both want to eliminate racism, but their worldviews cause conflict on how to do that.
There are some legitimate fundamental differences on LGBT rights, I'll admit. Not so much on LG, but as you get further into the abbreviation, it increases.
And that's ignoring the whole rape thing with Assange.
But yes, we need to take it extremely seriously in the West and fight against any and all encroachments so that we don't slide further towards authoritarianism. Recent trends have been concerning.
> In 2010, Assange gained unauthorized access to a government computer system of a NATO country. In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack.
> Assange conspired with Army Intelligence Analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a password hash to a classified U.S. Department of Defense computer.
If this is true then he is not a journalist.
Note that even in the quoted allegations he pretty much didn't actually even do much at all. I don't know Assange, but I don't have doubts about who to side with.
It’s especially sad trying to cite him in this context, as we already know that he censors and threatens whistleblowers who ask him to publish documents on Putin.
Coincidentally enough, he has signed a contract with Russian state tv for his own tv show. He’s also been confronted about these facts and doesn’t bother denying any of it.
From the center of strategic and international studies. It describes how the same ideology (white male christian) worldview is connected to Putin and Trump, and how the West is viewed as decadent through the moral lens of the fundamentalist churches in both the US and the Russian orthodox church.
From the article “Here traditionalism and identity are fused together such that disrupting one threatens the other. Any demographic change (particularly immigration from Muslim-majority and non-White countries, exacerbated in the public perception by low birth rates) is viewed as a direct challenge to identity and tradition.”
So maybe the better word is “strategic conversatism” as per the article.
Conservatism in the US is not what conservatism in France is. Conservatism in Mexico is not what conservatism in Brazil is.
Putin's version of conservatism, as mentioned in the article, is only applicable to Russia and countries with similar culture.
Comparing Trump to Putin is like comparing Nixon to Brezhnev.
Besides that I think that Putin made genuinely smart strategical steps to ensure that nobody will get between him and Ukraine... How it will turn out we yet have to see.
Cornering a leader with nuclear capabilities benefits nobody and can get dangerous, leaving him with nothing to lose. I think Trump wanted to use Russia to counter China.
I mean, I'm sure that somewhere there's been a terrible abuse and someone got fired or whatever. It's a big country. But, I'm equally sure that whatever happened, you know about it because the news was delivered to you by conservative media.
The US is fine. We had an authoritarian scare for a while, but the system held.
Censorship is part of existing as part of a society though. There are people who seek to actively hurt others using words and media, and the whole idea of a state is to (pretend?) to act in the common good. At this point the internet gives everyone a platform (look at us right now, there's a near 0% chance we would have ever spoken in physical real life) and makes a TON more noise that makes finding the signal harder, which means both sides can find plenty of examples of the other behaving badly to "whatabout" whenever someone points out their own bad behavior.
TL;dr- Everyone wants censorship, even if they pretend they don't, so let's not pretend it's actually either side. If anything, your point just proves that Dems/leftists might have more power in the US to influence these things, but that doesn't prove they have more desire to influence them than the right.
I suspect that's exactly what Putin would say if he were challenged.
You need to elaborate more if you want to use hyperbole to make a point, otherwise it's just hyperbole. It exists on both sides of an argument.
What kind of an argument is this? The only common thread between the two is the word "banning".
Banning Joe Rogan is because he spreads misinformation about vaccines. He is causing lots of people to die, and the pandemic is longer because of it.
Banning a book about the holocaust prevents people learning about the atrocities of the past.
Because free speech is free speech, whether you agree with what was said or not.
Its factually true that people have had severe adverse reactions and died from the vaccine. He interviewed genuine credentialed experts like Dr. Robert Malone on the potential dangers of the Covid vaccine.
I am in favor of the Covid vaccine and disagree with Joe but he's allowed to express his dissenting opinions.
Podcasts are not medical advise and should not be treated as such.
There is an extremely important difference between these two examples. The first was the government forcing school libraries to remove books.
The second is individuals expressing displeasure with the speech of another individual.
While both involve people who want to silence others. The former is a violation of free speech, while the later is an exercise of free speech.
Talk about fake news. Maus wasn't banned.
What news sources are you reading that tell you the government forced school libraries to remove Maus? You need to stop reading them, they are misleading you. Find better news sources.
I suspect what you mean by this is "outlets claiming to report 'news' but actually spreading misinformation".
That's quite different from "disagreement".
Notice how this works?
When a news source that is aligned with your political party gets it wrong "its ok" but when its a new source that is not aligned with your party its "spreading misinformation".
There is no objective standard for misinformation so trying to say disagreement and misinformation are not the same depends entirely on what is the issue being discussed. Any issue with ambiguity can be dismissed far too easily by just claiming it "misinformation".
There are reliable news outlets. Don't assume that just because an outlet has a political skew in the direction opposite from your preferred one that everyone you disagree with must watch and endorse it. That's a strawman.
Its a strawman that you are introducing by saying:
> I suspect what you mean by this is "outlets claiming to report 'news' but actually spreading misinformation".
> That's quite different from "disagreement".
I am pointing out that there is not a large difference between what you say is misinformation and disagreement. Many news outlets get things wrong and are guilty of allowing political bias to steer them towards saying things that are not true. You can't just call something misinformation because you disagree with it.
Nearly every news outlet in this country has gotten things wrong at some point and a tenuous definition of misinformation could be used to make them all look bad.
Citing something as "misinformation" is often a strawman argument and a word used to dismiss viewpoints people do not agree with on any issue that has some ambiguity, including the lab leak theory.
Later, the longer a root cause was not discovered, the more likely the theory became, and the less racist it became to speak about.
I think CNN would try to hide under "entertainment" in front of a court of law, but have they actually been dragged in front of a court for lying?
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddow...
https://nypost.com/2021/09/21/the-hunter-biden-laptop-is-con...
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/09/21/dou...
Leftist bias at the intercept prevented Greenwald from publishing a story about it as well https://nypost.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-quits-the-inte...
I mean, if I worked in a news room and wanted to publish a story about the president's cousin's roommate's great soup recipe, and the editor says "NO" does that mean I'm being censored?
Irregardless of Greenwald, you can't deny twitter and social media outlets banning a New York Post journalist(and the White House Press Secretary) for sharing that story was not egregious censorship.
Banning articles from journalists is censorship. Period.
https://nypost.com/2021/09/21/the-hunter-biden-laptop-is-con...
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/09/21/dou...
"Now, however, almost no one disputes [the laptop's] authenticity."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/27/hunter-biden...
- The DKIM hashes of the emails on the laptop were verified.
- The pictures on the laptop contain him in it doing various illicit activities.
- His business partner came out against him.
- He won't deny its inauthentic, he said it "could be".
- There's a video of him talking to a Russian prostitute saying they stole his laptop and he's worried it'll be used to blackmail his father who is running for President.
https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/hunterbiden/video-2479077/...
https://nypost.com/2021/04/02/hunter-biden-says-laptop-at-ce...
Russia participates in censorship on a state level with its own state-run media agencies. These things are not equivalent. The Hunter Biden story is widely reported by numerous American media outlets.
And that story was banned on social media unfairly(this banning was cheered on by Dems and left leaning folks), even though it turned it to be credible later.
It was egregious censorship is the main point I am making here.
As bad as Putin? No. Was it bad? Yes.
The "muh private companies" argument ended long ago when government officials started using it as their main platform and we applied archive rules and prevented Trump from blocking people: https://www.wsj.com/articles/president-trump-cant-block-twit...
You can't have it both ways. Let's investigate why they all decided at once to block it right before the election. Are they coordinating? Let's find out. Seems like an anti-trust issue.
Point is, it's censorship, no matter how much people try to weasel out of it.
It's legal in Russia to do what Putin is doing, that doesn't make it not censorship.
But yes, we're working on it, it starts with public discussion and communicating with our representatives, which I and others do.
Playing semantics over whether omission of truth is bias vs. censorship doesn't make a strong argument.
The 1A guarantees the right that our government won't censor us.
It only pertains to the government, not these two instances involving social media behemoths and Russia.
Just because something doesn't violate the 1A doesn't mean it's not censorship.
Are you saying Putin isn't censoring information since it's legal for him to do so in Russia?
That’s their job.
"Rotten" because it looks bad and goes against your bias doesn't make it worthy of censorship. Social media censoring a NY post journalist over this was censorship. Period.
You tell me what part of the story you think is true.
A laptop existing isn’t the whole story right?
The guardian goes more in depth on what aspects of hunter bidens business dealings are worth looking into(they discuss the laptop here as well): https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/27/hunter-biden...
That’s not a story at all, and not the reason the story was rotten.
This reads like you’re not being very honest about the actual story that was being sold to news organizations.
Your not being honest with your motives to deny the guardian stories points or the fact that article even exists, do you not want to admit there is something potentially shady happening?
I don't know with 100% certainty either way honestly, I would have wanted the story to be covered if it was any other politician (and don't like trump, glad he lost tbh) so I am not sure what bone your trying to pick at. (this comment goes deeper into what was potentially found if you are interested https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30548675)
"So we're supposed to protect you against Russia and you pay billions of dollars to Russia and I think that's very inappropriate"
Trump 2018
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-summit-pipeline/trum...
So, Putin is now saying, “It’s independent,” a large section of Ukraine. I said, “How smart is that?” And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force… We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy… I know him very well. Very, very well."
Trump 02/22/2022.
(emphasis mine)
Full audio interview here:
https://www.clayandbuck.com/president-trump-with-cb-from-mar...
Obviously it wasn't as clever as Putin hoped, because nobody in the whole world except a few Russian HN posters believe it. But saying that your opponent has a clever plan does not mean you're on the opponent's side.
There's a difference between having LEGITIMATE business long BEFORE your dad has power vs. getting put on a board of a corrupt energy company WHILE your dad is overseeing the country relations as VP. One is capitalism, one is nepotism.
But all that being said, the statement "they get most all of their money from Russia" is wrong at face value. Their businesses do not get the majority of revenue from Russia. Back that statement up with a source so it can be torn apart.
In Czechia up to 1 year for publicly supporting Russia (two people already detained): https://www.praguemorning.cz/expressing-support-for-russia-o...
In Slovakia, supporting [Russian] war propaganda 10 to 25 years: https://spravy.rtvs.sk/2022/02/za-podporu-vojnovej-propagand...
EU banned RT and Sputnik:
"It shall be prohibited for operators to broadcast or to enable, facilitate or otherwise contribute to broadcast, any content by the legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex XV, including through transmission or distribution by any means such as cable, satellite, IP-TV, internet service providers, internet video-sharing platforms or applications, whether new or pre-installed"
How do you know that if you can't see them? And if you have been looking at them and have made a judgement why can't other people do the same?
> Such things are never tolerated in war.
Wait, what?! The Czech Republic is at war with Russia?
> this is a period in human history where we're going to have to let go of some naive notions pertaining to "freedom of speech".
And replace it with a sophisticated, jesuitical understanding? I'd prefer if you were honest and just said you do not believe in Free Speech.
RT and Sputnik are literally Russian government entities.
What did this war look like? What actions did the government actually take to fight journalists covering POTUS unfavorably? Because I just remember an incredible amount of pearl clutching by journalists about how dangerous it is to say bad things about the press and how democracy would die in darkness if their credibility was questioned. It never actually stopped them from continuing act the same way.
https://pressgazette.co.uk/trump-vs-media-freedom-of-press-d...
Now that is out of the way, should we switch our focus back to how Russia suppress any domestic news about the ongoing Ukriane war? Or “special operation” as it’s only allowed to be called?
If we are being completely honest, we won't pretend the last three (whether you mean Obama, Trump, Biden or Bush, Obama, Trump) were special in that regard.
Describing media outlets he didn't like as "a war against .. media" is sensationalist. Saying this is "the same authoritarianism in different stages" is the same as saying getting angry is the same as genocide - "same anger in different stages" which is what ahs given rise to the draconian "literally Hitler" attitude to any dissent; This in itself is totalitarian.
You then claim that this is the "same authoritarianism" as that of Putin's Russia, where the press is firmly muzzled, where you can and will go to prison for in any way openly criticizing the United Russia Party or Putin himself and where reporters or political opponents are regularly, frequently murdered even abroad for going against the grain of Putin's narratives too often.
No, these are not cases of different stages, they're cases of entirely different worlds. Trump's authoritarian noises were mostly just noises and sloppy backlash. Putin's authoritarianism is the real thing.
https://nitter.snopyta.org/MarkAmesExiled/status/14991264245...
No one is innocent here. On Spanish media they dared to use videogame images (Arma 3) as real footage, ditto with a Chinese civil explosion (causality/accident) as a Russia bombing strike.
I'm going to go with jailing citizens for 15 years as much worse than mildly critical journalists in Russia.
Ignoring your combo whataboutism and gish gallop. Don't think Russia has much jurisdiction over some Spanish news channel.
Look what happened in Ukraine. Among neonazis, they supported this:
Ukraine's 2017 education law will make Ukrainian the required language of study in state schools from the fifth grade on, although it allows instruction in other languages as a separate subject,[65][66][67] to be phased in in 2023.[68] Since 2017, the Hungary–Ukraine relations rapidly deteriorated over the issue of the Hungarian minority in Ukraine.[69] According to the New Europe:
The latest row between Kiev and Budapest comes on the heels of a bitter dispute over a decision by Ukraine's parliament – the Verkhovna Rada – to pass a legislative package on education that bars primary education to all students in any language but Ukrainian. The move has been widely condemned by the international community as needlessly provocative as it forces the historically bilingual population of 45 million people who use Russian and Ukrainian interchangeably as mother tongues to become monolingual. Furthermore, the large minorities of Hungarians, Jews, Poles, Tatars, Gypsies, Romanians, Caucasians, and Gagauz generally speak and receive some formal or informal education in their own national languages, all of which will be adversely affected by the new draconian language statute.
Also:
Lviv Oblast Unian reported that "A ban on the use of cultural products, namely movies, books, songs, etc., in the Russian language in the public has been introduced" in the Lviv Oblast in September 2018.[71] Critics[who?] called the law ill-defined, illegal, and unconstitutional, and a successful January 2019 court challenge by the Chuhuiv Human Rights Group was dismissed on technical grounds in May, and could lead to a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights.[72]
They tried to ban the public usage of Russian in Ukraine.
That's a little step towards fascism.
Hope the war ends soon, the "rebel" provinces gets a referendum and if they opt to be part of Russia, they should have a clause to be Russian AND part of the European Union. Everyone wins. Russia too, even if it "hates" the West they need us the Europeans economically far more than a war mongering USA.
I also don’t get “among neo-nazis” line.
In any case language question is more a Russian propaganda talking point, I don’t see it being major topic in the Ukrainian political life.
1. It is just a proposal: “The proposed legislation, which is supported by Vyacheslav Volodin, the parliamentary speaker, a close ally of President Putin, could be discussed by parliament as early as this week, state television reported.”
2. Another wild proposal, to forcibly conscript protestors, was shot down by Kremlin:
https://twitter.com/GazetaRu/status/1499402119836622858
It’s disappointing to see not one comment here suggesting that someone read beyond the headline. Et tu, Hacker News?
Fake news doesn’t mean literally everything in the article is fake. It’s a metaphor
Silverfish's brow furrowed. "Well," he said, "yesterday you said—"
"I mean metaphorically," said Dibbler quickly.
"Oh. Well. Metaphorically? I suppose not—"
"There you are, then."
— Terry Pratchett
To your credit "to" in the headline here could be considered misleading. It implies "[If the proposal by Volodin, a close ally of Putin, is successful] Russia to punish ‘fake news’".
The actual war isn't going well at all. Their reg troops are driving by wrecked russian equipment destroying their morale.
So they can't deal with reality, send everyone who dissents to prison.
It even had an additional electronic component which made it accept PAL signal, in addition to its native SECAM.
PS: Some say SECAM was technically superior to PAL, but dunno.
Another proposition is to send anti-war protesters to war “so that they can see what's actually going on”.
Maybe I'm being cynical, but I think there may be some potential problems with that approach.
This description matches everything that Putin and his lackeys have been doing since 22-02-2022
Constitutions alone do nothing. If we're not on guard, collectively, we could easily end up without freedom of speech and press in practice.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/3/22960223/reddit-ukraine-ru...
https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/3/22959636/spotify-removes-r...
UK law people making social media posts could face two years in prison over Fake News https://www.rt.com/uk/539103-trolls-prison-psychological-har...
The wording of the Hong Kong national security law asserts jurisdiction over people who are not residents of Hong Kong and have never even set foot there. This means anyone on Earth, regardless of nationality or location, can technically be deemed to have violated this law and face arrest and prosecution if they are in a Chinese jurisdiction, even for transit.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/07/hong-kong-nat...