“My GitHub account has been restricted due to US sanctions as I live in Crimea”

Post by dngray » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 1:58 AM UTC

moksly wrote: post #68

dngray wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would that really change anything? I think what we’re seeing is the inevitable result of the internet and tech companies becoming the most important aspect of modern civilisation. I think what we are seeing is the implementation of authoritarian governments, something that has been on the increase nearly everywhere, in the last 20 years. People have in the developed world had it, too good for too long. Complacency…

I’m Danish and in our very recent election we voted the authoritarians and populists out, by a large margin. Margrete Vestager is from a very liberal (as in free) Danish party, and she’s pushing some of the toughest regulations on big tech companies that we’ve seen in years. So I’m not convinced it’s really authoritarian. We have a big scandal right now in Denmark, because a company secretly sold jet-fuel to Russians…

Post by fortran77 » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 1:58 AM UTC

realusername wrote: post #36

fortran77 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

git is already decentralized. You can use it easily without github. This restriction is from the U.S. Government, not a "corporation."

Why do we always have a comment like this completely missing the point about Github? If git was synonymous of Github, Microsoft would not have spent 7 billion to buy it, there's a lot of features on top of git. And for me, whether it's a decision of the US government or Github does not matter much.

Post by Hidios » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 1:59 AM UTC

dvt wrote: post #72

dn3 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean this to sound aggressive, but would you agree then with sanctioning the U.S. after its actual military shot down an Iranian passenger plane, inside Iranian waters [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Someone always brings up 655. Say what you will, the US government at least paid out to the victims (although never officially apologized). While Russia denies all involvement to this day and lawsuits are still ongoing.

Post by kragen » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 1:59 AM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #76

kragen wrote: post #6

During the Cold War, the primary thing that distinguished the US side from the USSR side was that, while speech by USSR people and people sympathetic to the USSR (like, say, CPUSA) was published in the US, publishing speech sympathetic to the US in the USSR would get you arrested. It seems like the US has become what the USSR was: companies who publish speech from people in Iran or Crimea are now violating the law by…

Why do you say you could publish pro-soviet material in the USA during the cold war? My understanding is that this is not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism > In 1952, the Supreme Court upheld a lower-court decision in Adler v. Board of Education of New York, thus approving a law that allowed state loyalty review boards to fire teachers deemed "subversive". It had certainly cooled down from outright McCa…

Post by jessaustin » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 2:00 AM UTC

bin0 wrote: post #51

avocado4 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they sanction Crimea (victim) instead of Russia?

Because they don't want to allow Russia to use it as a port or for commerce; Russia has been trying to take the Crimea for commercial purposes for the last millenium or so. And because they don't have the guts to sanction all of Russia.