Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Russia to restrict Facebook access for 'censoring' its media

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 291 posts

Re: Russia to restrict Facebook access for 'censoring' its media

#281

Post by myko »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #111
georgeglue1 wrote: post #91

Theoretically, the main point here is that Facebook has an independent fact checker program, and some of those fact checkers rated Russian media posts (which would lead to a big scary overlay and a reduction in views) I'd guess they would have used some other excuse to block Facebook sooner than later anyways though.

"independent", are you really able to say it with straight face? I'm not even talking of russian posts, it is as partisan as can be, supporting Dem agenda and suppressing GOP.

GOP voters/media, like the Russian government, are big spreaders of fake news - which is why so much of their media gets removed by fact checkers. They aren't supporting the Democrats or the GOP directly.

Interestingly, if you read the Mueller report you will see that Russia generated fake news for Democrats as well (it just didn't spread as well as on its own).

Re: Russia to restrict Facebook access for 'censoring' its media

#282

Post by cutemonster »

orthoxerox wrote: post #139
cutemonster wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about Tor? Or if Twitter gets more IP addresses, they'll work for a short while, until black box config updated?

Tor is for nerds, they don't count. You can't expect regular people to run Tor on their phones.

If I ask if there's any place to buy rollerblades nearby, do you think that means I expect everyone to go by rollerblades?

Re: Russia to restrict Facebook access for 'censoring' its media

#283

Post by NikolaNovak »

int_19h wrote: post #279
NikolaNovak wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree. The problem is 1. This Bully has nuclear weapons 2. This Bully has historically shown they are willing and able to take more pain for their cause.

Indeed. But the bully also knows that using nukes would be the end of him, even if he gets to take everybody else along. Russia would absolutely use nukes if it's actually invaded, but a conventional military confrontation on foreign territory is a very different matter. As for being willing to take more pain - you're right, that's a big part of the problem for the West. But it needs to understand that, just like in…

I worry that it's not about one big red button but gradual escalation.

Somebody decides that using tactical kiloton Nukes is the way to go and other side would not dare escalate further.

A lot of people think if they do the big fearsome escalation, then the other side will back off. Everything up to this point indicates this is Putin's logic. He may be over committed now - what option other than finishing invasion does he realistically have that preserves any goals or prerogatives? In some ways the rational thing, from his perspective, is to keep escalating until other side acts "rationally" and backs off.

It's all a giant game of chicken, and I am not convinced that all state leaders anywhere let alone everywhere are rational and fearful enough.

Re: Russia to restrict Facebook access for 'censoring' its media

#284

Post by InitialLastName »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #200
csee wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you use the Putin propaganda euphemism "current operation" and not just call it an invasion or war of aggression.

Because people tend to copy the terminology of the regime they live in, even if they don't agree with it. We do the same thing. IE on English Wikipedia there's an article 2011 military intervention in Libya . I can't remember many prestigious western news sources calling it an "invasion" - so neither do most of us.

From that article:

> The intervention did not employ foreign ground troops.

I'm no military theorist, but "foreign boots on the ground" is the lay-person's definition of an "invasion". Absent that, it could have been a war, a police action, a military intervention, or a bombing campaign, but it wasn't an "invasion".

Re: Russia to restrict Facebook access for 'censoring' its media

#285

Post by darkarmani »

qiskit wrote: post #226
darkarmani wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazing. All social media is heavily monitored and censored everywhere. We can argue degrees but it's all censored. Nope. On WhatsApp, no message I've ever sent has been censored. I haven't heard of anyone being censored on whatsapp. (the example being wechat which i believe is equivalent). > Like that chinese tennis player right. Or jack ma? Disappeared and then reappeared. Like magic. You aren't making the point…

> Nope. On WhatsApp, no message I've ever sent has been censored. Just because you haven't been censored doesn't mean everyone isn't censored. https://reclaimthenet.org/whatsapp-kashmir-deactivated/ Facebook owns WhatsApp. You really think there is no censorship on WhatsApp. > You aren't making the point you think you are. You are confirming that they were disappeared for a LONG time by the gov't. I am making an exac…

> Oh my god, a tennis player and jack ma didn't make themselves available to western press for a bit.

That's the best propaganda you can come up with? "make themselves available...for a bit"?

That's disingenuous.

Re: Russia to restrict Facebook access for 'censoring' its media

#286

Post by nomel »

FpUser wrote: post #254
nomel wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the parent, and I consider the people of Russia to be a separate entity from their government. But, how do you see Putin getting pushed out of power, other than by the Russian people? If it is required that the Russian people push him out, is it not logical that they must be motivated, with the assumption that sanctions would not be required if they were already motivated enough? I'm trying to understand all…

Putin has huge internal security apparatus backing him up. He does not give a flying fuck about what people think and will not hesitate to suppress any potentially threatening activity with overwhelming force. If you think that you can sanction / starve Russia to the point that simple people will organize, revolt and depose Putin I think you live on a different planet. The only force that can really depose him are so…

I see. Do you think a hit to the economy could motivate any of the elites? Or are they mostly decoupled from any fluctuations in the Russian economy (foreign investments for example)?

Re: Russia to restrict Facebook access for 'censoring' its media

#287

Post by droptablemain »

13415 wrote: post #277
droptablemain wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because I don't appreciate complex geopolitical issues being boiled down to "Russia bad, poor Ukraine." It's complicated and messy. Don't pretend like it's black-and-white.

Contrary to what you're insinuating, this is one of the clearest cases in recorded history of conflicts. Russia is the aggressor and started a territorial war against Ukraine - already in 2014, now turned into a full-scale invasion. You need to check your moral compass and brush up your knowledge of international relations and history.

Not true. This has been eight years in the making. Civil War at Russia's borders. A fascist, neo-Nazi military terrorizing ethnic Russians. 14,000 dead in Donbas. Your "clear case" is missing quite a bit of information.

Re: Russia to restrict Facebook access for 'censoring' its media

#288

Post by pyronik19 »

oceanplexian wrote: post #66
jonas21 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strangely, it was obvious to both sides in the US election that Facebook was pushing the agenda of the other side.

The parent poster never said their "side" was Democrat or Republican, only that it was Facebook's political agenda. Facebook's agenda is promoting the maximum amount of outrage so it can increase engagement. You can play all sides of the political spectrum to achieve that.

I didn't and I am not going to be coy about it, I am right of center of most issues. It really annoys me to see Facebook shut down the "truckers convoy" facebook organization even but at the same time never shut anything down relating to BLM as just a recent and obvious example. That said I don't want either shut down. I think these platforms should seek to emulating the free speech *principles* of the first amendment even if they aren't bound legally by them (today) where anything up to incitement of violence is unacceptable. Today its just a disaster where they ban/deboost people for political views that aren't left wing, banning "misinformation" that is actually true, and are funneling dark money into elections, and god knows what the hell they are doing with all the data.

Re: Russia to restrict Facebook access for 'censoring' its media

#289

Post by rr808 »

emteycz wrote: post #67
rr808 wrote: post #57

Telegram is main social media platform of this war. Kinda weird to connect to Russian SM to find out what other side is saying (with Google translate). https://t.me/s/wargonzo https://t.me/s/sashakots https://t.me/s/MedvedevVesti

What do you mean by connecting to Russian servers? Telegram has nothing to do with Russia.

https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1500505674991779842

Re: Russia to restrict Facebook access for 'censoring' its media

#290

Post by ytpete »

sneak wrote: post #228
jacquesm wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true but the sanctions do send a message, especially if those sanctions also affect the EU: that we are willing to take a hit to get this under control. Regardless: if Russia doesn't come to its senses quickly the country will likely not recover in the next 40 years or so from the kind of damage they are doing to their stature on the international stage, this is not the kind of thing you walk away from and cla…

Russia is a lot more than its military dictators, it is the Russian people you are talking about harming. Should cancer patients in Oklahoma not be permitted to buy chemotherapy medications because Bush invaded Iraq? We banned collective punishment in the Geneva Convention because it is insane and unjust. I have persian friends with family in Iran who can testify firsthand to how damaging sanctions are to people who…

Isn't Iran a great example of sanctions actually having some useful effect, though? In 2015 Iran agreed to give up much of its nuclear program in exchange for lifting many of the US/UN/EU sanctions.
Post reply on HN