Shrug? Russia can do whatever they like to their people. Not our place to tell them what's right or wrong in governing their own people. Our problem is the unjustified invasion of Ukraine.
I look at recent history and many Arabic people rose up against their governments. Those people are a strong people and they did it despite high risk of throwing their civilization into civil war or worse.
Canadians have been there to help refugees from those torn countries each time. We will be there to help Ukraine just as we did for Syrians.
As for Russia, we are done being lied to by them. We don't need any interaction with them anymore. They are completely blocked for the immoral and unethical invasion.
>This is a callous viewpoint. My heart goes out to the Russian citizens living in an effective dictatorship.
You call me callous, that's fine. It would seem others agree with you as I'm quite downvoted. I have a surprising number of Russian interests like Chess. The Russian chess community rejected this war.
We have to remember that our liberal democratic way isn't the only way. It is not our place to tell other countries how to run their countries. That is up to the Russian people to decide. Do they agree with Putin and if not, are they as strong as the Arabic people? Will they overthrow Putin?
> our liberal democratic way isn't the only way. ... are they as strong as the Arabic people?
You seem to be suggesting that instead of elections, people can decide who their leader is by having a civil war instead.
I don't think it is chauvinism to prefer a system where fewer people have to die to effect political change over one where inevitably many more people die.
>You seem to be suggesting that instead of elections, people can decide who their leader is by having a civil war instead.
That's not my position at all. You cut context.
>I don't think it is chauvinism to prefer a system where fewer people have to die to effect political change over one where inevitably many more people die.
You and I agree here.
Would you say Russia has free and fair elections? Their election only months ago did provide a supermajority of seats.
If yes, would you agree than the average Russian supports Putin and the war?
Since this account has been using HN exclusively for political and ideological battle, I've banned it. We ban such accounts, regardless of what they're battling for, because they destroy what this site is supposed to be.
Please do not create accounts to break HN's rules with.
Even if I disagree with my government (and believe me, I do) I don't really have an option of starting a civil war.
If I do and I'm successful my livelihood will be at risk, my society will be a mess, my house and the currency in which I earn money will devalue. Unless I am poor and destitute, a civil war will never be an option that makes sense.
Voting a different candidate is unlikely to effect any change. Politicians change tune once they are in power (eg. Biden and his promises to forget student loans) and a lot of views are not represented in candidates.
I still don't see any reasons to be blamed for what my government does.
And I don't blame the Russians for what Putin is doing, I'm sickened by the amount of hate Russians are getting (especially the ones living abroad): a lot of them have been trying to escape Russia for decades and only the richest and most skilled are able to do so.
Heads of State as individuals are not any stronger, smarter or better than the rest of us. They become stronger and more powerful because of their support system. If you participate in a system, you are propping it up to at least some degree.
Your philosophy sounds like a dictator’s sweet spot. Lie, cheat, steal, intimidate, coerce, punish, etc. as much as possible, but not to the point where the people want to do anything about it. Make them feel disconnected, powerless and dependent on you. Present yourself as their protector, their savior, the only one between you and a world that wants to destroy the things important to them: their family, their job, their culture, etc.
So yeah no one citizen is directly responsible for their leader’s actions, but we’re all responsible to some extent for our country’s actions if we’re not resisting them effectively.
You don’t always have to kill to resist. Some people start an underground newspaper. Others collaborate with foreign governments. Others practice civil disobedience. Others flee the country. Others make art and comedy that helps turn popular sentiment. Others practice economic boycotts. There are lots of ways to resist if you’re willing.
This coupled with the jail sentences for "disinformation" are predictable in autocracies like Russia. They desire to shutdown information and steer their subject populations into the path of correct thinking.
Very disturbing to see the EU following down this path with the censorship of RussiaToday and other Russian propaganda outfits.
As a citizen of a democracy it is essential that I have the right to access and evaluate all opinions. Even those which I find abhorrent.
1) that was somewhat my point: so-called liberal democracies are increasingly censoring and distributing information. Exactly the Orwellian-dystopia many of us fear.
2) If we are talking about the Czech and Slovak examples posted the other day¹ I doubt the Czech authorities, if correctly reported (they seem like extra-ordinary over-reach to me, so much so that I wondered if they were Russian psyops to make the EU look undemocratic and authoritarian), have a legal leg to stand on. The laws seem to refer to war-time. It's part of an attempt to threaten people to shut up or else. I was tempted to see this as a flare-up of anti-democratic thinking from a state long run by a Stalinist political class and only recently (2004) acceded to the EU. Like Poland and Hungary there remain serious questions about the commitment to democratic principles of such states. But then I checked myself and noted that this was unfair as the EU has issued no formal condemnation of this censorship and the public appetite for being spoon fed by their betters seems high.
To be clear: Russia is committing a war crime in invading Ukraine and must withdraw. We must support the Ukranian people without allowing the authoritarians in our own societies to destroy the very values we claim to uphold. No censorship.
> And why would it be alright if a business did it?
Because it’s a free market. If the company isn’t a monopoly, it’s a slight inconvenience if you have to go somewhere else, it’s not censorship. You can still access the content and say what you want about it somewhere else.
The opposite is almost impossible to enforce. Look at book stores. They can’t sell every single book because of physical and practical limitations. You’d also be preventing niche bookstores like ones that only cater to cookbooks. You can’t force a business to accept everything anyone wants to say no matter what. In a free market businesses are allowed to create the customer experience they desire.
This Russian law is what censorship looks like. A complete banning of a word or topic — with the power to enforce that ban.
Private businesses have no jurisdiction over the decisions of another free market business.
I think the RT and Sputnik bans had the added component of being a state-owned revenue stream for Russia and therefore a not so indirect financier of the invasion. You can still access the websites for free.
You should remove the word "free". It's just a market but there is little to no freedom. Anyone holding a stance outside the acceptable one is neutered very quickly. Political parties have direct access to media leadership and effectively give orders to satisfy a narrative that are faithfully carried out.
If you’re talking about the news or opinions, it’s easier than ever for anyone to make content accessible to the masses. Create a self-hosted blog and write whatever speech you want that’s protected by the 1st amendment and promote it worldwide. There are way more independent journalists than ever before in history.
And you aren’t entitled to demand to see your views reflected in the NYT or WSJ. If your views aren’t being promoted widely enough, you can start your own opinion paper and it will succeed or fail based on the invisible hand of the market.
The problem I think is when people with very niche views want to bypass the free market and just demand that everyone else on a certain platform be subjected to their views.
You can say what you want on your own property, at your own business or in the public square, but you don’t have a right to insist that a 3rd party company promote and distribute your personal views.
Preventing a hostile foreign power from running a propaganda campaign against you is not what most people mean by censorship. The citizens and residents of the EU are still free to broadcast whatever they want.
Are there any Czech speakers that can help out? I have been trying to verify that "Prague Morning" story and cannot find references to it in their list of main newspapers in wikipedia.
Actually, having googled and looked around I am highly conflicted on this. There is no coverage either pro/con in The Times, The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/freedom-of-speech-and-...), LA Times, Washington Post, The Economist, The Guardian.
There are mentions only on disreputable English language media like Breitbart, forums like Reddit that all go back to citing BalkanInsight¹,² who in turn cite a publication called TN Nova³.
This root/source one is hard to evaluate. Not speaking the language or having much of a clue about it it is hard to tell whether their other stories about e.g. 30,000 Ukranian refugees arriving and being given apartments and insurance are meant to be laudatory or stir up resentment.
But there is a website⁴ which seems to belong to the Czech Republic justice ministry if I am reading their ssl cert correctly. Using translation software suggests that this is accurate reporting of statements by their chief prosecutor:
In addition I found what seemed to be a non-fake news media platform (Radio Prague (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Prague) which reported the same interpretation in English⁵ here
While trying to discern if this is actually Russians trying to make the EU look like a bunch of authoritarians restricting information I found this fascinating quote on wikipedia:
"Fake news outlets in the Czech Republic redistribute news in Czech and English originally produced by Russian sources. Czech president Miloš Zeman has been supporting media outlets accused of spreading fake news.[252]
The Centre Against Terrorism and Hybrid Threats (CTHH) is unit of the Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic primarily aimed at countering disinformation, fake news, hoaxes and foreign propaganda. The CTHH started operations on January 1, 2017. The CTHH has been criticized by Czech President Miloš Zeman, who said: "We don't need censorship. We don't need thought police. We don't need a new agency for press and information as long as we want to live in a free and democratic societ...
This is why we need to get rid of the government and decentralise powers.
Russia and China are indefensible.
It took 200 years to go from the minarchism of the USA to the largest government in the world.
Europe keeps becoming more and more authoritarian.
No more wars, centralised stealing, bureaucracy, corruption, over-regulations
The same services the government is offering, can be offered by private companies.
We can build road, do healthcare and protect people.
I really hope that after the last 2 years and now this, people will realise we need to change something.
You can protect people with money. Not that that's different from today, but under privatization, the poor are unworthy of protection, just like they're unworthy of healthcare today
i made a translation of official RIA new feed a couple of days worth to English to show what official media looks like in Russia right now https://pastebin.com/2JvLre8d
Interesting. Looks like they’re embracing the sanction news and boosting Maduro’s views. But amazing to see 0 headlines about Russian advances in Ukraine.
31 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 83.2 ms ] threadI look at recent history and many Arabic people rose up against their governments. Those people are a strong people and they did it despite high risk of throwing their civilization into civil war or worse.
Canadians have been there to help refugees from those torn countries each time. We will be there to help Ukraine just as we did for Syrians.
As for Russia, we are done being lied to by them. We don't need any interaction with them anymore. They are completely blocked for the immoral and unethical invasion.
This is a callous viewpoint. My heart goes out to the Russian citizens living in an effective dictatorship.
You call me callous, that's fine. It would seem others agree with you as I'm quite downvoted. I have a surprising number of Russian interests like Chess. The Russian chess community rejected this war.
We have to remember that our liberal democratic way isn't the only way. It is not our place to tell other countries how to run their countries. That is up to the Russian people to decide. Do they agree with Putin and if not, are they as strong as the Arabic people? Will they overthrow Putin?
You seem to be suggesting that instead of elections, people can decide who their leader is by having a civil war instead.
I don't think it is chauvinism to prefer a system where fewer people have to die to effect political change over one where inevitably many more people die.
That's not my position at all. You cut context.
>I don't think it is chauvinism to prefer a system where fewer people have to die to effect political change over one where inevitably many more people die.
You and I agree here.
Would you say Russia has free and fair elections? Their election only months ago did provide a supermajority of seats.
If yes, would you agree than the average Russian supports Putin and the war?
Please do not create accounts to break HN's rules with.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Even if I disagree with my government (and believe me, I do) I don't really have an option of starting a civil war. If I do and I'm successful my livelihood will be at risk, my society will be a mess, my house and the currency in which I earn money will devalue. Unless I am poor and destitute, a civil war will never be an option that makes sense.
Voting a different candidate is unlikely to effect any change. Politicians change tune once they are in power (eg. Biden and his promises to forget student loans) and a lot of views are not represented in candidates.
I still don't see any reasons to be blamed for what my government does.
And I don't blame the Russians for what Putin is doing, I'm sickened by the amount of hate Russians are getting (especially the ones living abroad): a lot of them have been trying to escape Russia for decades and only the richest and most skilled are able to do so.
Your philosophy sounds like a dictator’s sweet spot. Lie, cheat, steal, intimidate, coerce, punish, etc. as much as possible, but not to the point where the people want to do anything about it. Make them feel disconnected, powerless and dependent on you. Present yourself as their protector, their savior, the only one between you and a world that wants to destroy the things important to them: their family, their job, their culture, etc.
So yeah no one citizen is directly responsible for their leader’s actions, but we’re all responsible to some extent for our country’s actions if we’re not resisting them effectively.
You don’t always have to kill to resist. Some people start an underground newspaper. Others collaborate with foreign governments. Others practice civil disobedience. Others flee the country. Others make art and comedy that helps turn popular sentiment. Others practice economic boycotts. There are lots of ways to resist if you’re willing.
But you can’t be neutral on a moving train.
If they really didn’t like Putin, they’d be able to get rid of him.
Very disturbing to see the EU following down this path with the censorship of RussiaToday and other Russian propaganda outfits.
As a citizen of a democracy it is essential that I have the right to access and evaluate all opinions. Even those which I find abhorrent.
1) that was somewhat my point: so-called liberal democracies are increasingly censoring and distributing information. Exactly the Orwellian-dystopia many of us fear.
2) If we are talking about the Czech and Slovak examples posted the other day¹ I doubt the Czech authorities, if correctly reported (they seem like extra-ordinary over-reach to me, so much so that I wondered if they were Russian psyops to make the EU look undemocratic and authoritarian), have a legal leg to stand on. The laws seem to refer to war-time. It's part of an attempt to threaten people to shut up or else. I was tempted to see this as a flare-up of anti-democratic thinking from a state long run by a Stalinist political class and only recently (2004) acceded to the EU. Like Poland and Hungary there remain serious questions about the commitment to democratic principles of such states. But then I checked myself and noted that this was unfair as the EU has issued no formal condemnation of this censorship and the public appetite for being spoon fed by their betters seems high.
To be clear: Russia is committing a war crime in invading Ukraine and must withdraw. We must support the Ukranian people without allowing the authoritarians in our own societies to destroy the very values we claim to uphold. No censorship.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30545186
Businesses in liberal democracies might be censoring on occasion, but you’re flat out wrong if you think it’s the government doing it.
And why would it be alright if a business did it?
Because it’s a free market. If the company isn’t a monopoly, it’s a slight inconvenience if you have to go somewhere else, it’s not censorship. You can still access the content and say what you want about it somewhere else.
The opposite is almost impossible to enforce. Look at book stores. They can’t sell every single book because of physical and practical limitations. You’d also be preventing niche bookstores like ones that only cater to cookbooks. You can’t force a business to accept everything anyone wants to say no matter what. In a free market businesses are allowed to create the customer experience they desire.
This Russian law is what censorship looks like. A complete banning of a word or topic — with the power to enforce that ban.
Private businesses have no jurisdiction over the decisions of another free market business.
I think the RT and Sputnik bans had the added component of being a state-owned revenue stream for Russia and therefore a not so indirect financier of the invasion. You can still access the websites for free.
You should remove the word "free". It's just a market but there is little to no freedom. Anyone holding a stance outside the acceptable one is neutered very quickly. Political parties have direct access to media leadership and effectively give orders to satisfy a narrative that are faithfully carried out.
If you’re talking about the news or opinions, it’s easier than ever for anyone to make content accessible to the masses. Create a self-hosted blog and write whatever speech you want that’s protected by the 1st amendment and promote it worldwide. There are way more independent journalists than ever before in history.
And you aren’t entitled to demand to see your views reflected in the NYT or WSJ. If your views aren’t being promoted widely enough, you can start your own opinion paper and it will succeed or fail based on the invisible hand of the market.
The problem I think is when people with very niche views want to bypass the free market and just demand that everyone else on a certain platform be subjected to their views.
You can say what you want on your own property, at your own business or in the public square, but you don’t have a right to insist that a 3rd party company promote and distribute your personal views.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-media-giants-agree...
There are mentions only on disreputable English language media like Breitbart, forums like Reddit that all go back to citing BalkanInsight¹,² who in turn cite a publication called TN Nova³.
1. https://birn.eu.com/news-and-events/meet-the-people-behind-b...
2. https://balkaninsight.com/2022/03/01/czechia-mulls-penalisin...
3. https://tn.nova.cz/zpravodajstvi/clanek/455893-za-podporu-ru...
This root/source one is hard to evaluate. Not speaking the language or having much of a clue about it it is hard to tell whether their other stories about e.g. 30,000 Ukranian refugees arriving and being given apartments and insurance are meant to be laudatory or stir up resentment.
But there is a website⁴ which seems to belong to the Czech Republic justice ministry if I am reading their ssl cert correctly. Using translation software suggests that this is accurate reporting of statements by their chief prosecutor:
4. https://web.archive.org/web/20220226184549/http://verejnazal...
In addition I found what seemed to be a non-fake news media platform (Radio Prague (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Prague) which reported the same interpretation in English⁵ here
5. https://english.radio.cz/chief-prosecutor-warns-against-publ...
and this Czech language one⁶ which is more detailed:
6. https://web.archive.org/web/20220226151448/https://www.irozh...
While trying to discern if this is actually Russians trying to make the EU look like a bunch of authoritarians restricting information I found this fascinating quote on wikipedia:
"Fake news outlets in the Czech Republic redistribute news in Czech and English originally produced by Russian sources. Czech president Miloš Zeman has been supporting media outlets accused of spreading fake news.[252]
The Centre Against Terrorism and Hybrid Threats (CTHH) is unit of the Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic primarily aimed at countering disinformation, fake news, hoaxes and foreign propaganda. The CTHH started operations on January 1, 2017. The CTHH has been criticized by Czech President Miloš Zeman, who said: "We don't need censorship. We don't need thought police. We don't need a new agency for press and information as long as we want to live in a free and democratic societ...
No more wars, centralised stealing, bureaucracy, corruption, over-regulations The same services the government is offering, can be offered by private companies. We can build road, do healthcare and protect people.
I really hope that after the last 2 years and now this, people will realise we need to change something.
How do we keep them in check?
I don’t think they’ll be able to persuade a Russian judge, but it’s interesting to see how people are trying to get around this.
Edit: there was country wide school lesson to explain to children operation in Ukraine. This is material for teachers to assist with Q&A post lesson https://meduza.io/feature/2022/03/03/kogda-ty-vstupish-v-sov...