Live data from Hacker News

Iran's internet blackout may become permanent, with access for elites only

restofworld.org

351–360 of 391 posts

Re: Iran's internet blackout may become permanent, with access for elites only

#351
post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who’s defending it? It’s awful that they’re arresting people with “Palestine Action” t-shirts too. It’s just not the same thing as actually disappearing people. That's the point of this thread, no? Things can be bad in different ways and to different degrees. If I say I don't like the way you just spoke about my sister and punch you in the gut, that's a pretty shitty thing to do. If I say I don't like the way you jus…

> If I say I don't like the way you just spoke about my sister and punch you in the gut, that's a pretty shitty thing to do. > If I say I don't like the way you just spoke about my sister and cut your throat then bury your body in the forest, I would like to think we can agree that's worse. So at what point can we start saying that violence because of words (or shirts) is bad? How much does it have to hurt? Should we…

> So at what point can we start saying that violence because of words (or shirts) is bad?

Straight away!

> Should we act as if you're a good guy, because it was just a punch?

No, and nobody is asking you to. In fact this is the whole point, can you not distinguish between those two guys?

Neither one is good. You're not being asked to decide one is 'good' and the other 'bad'. You're not being asked to accept that the more minor one is OK because it's not as bad as the other one.

They can both be bad. But they aren't the same. We don't say "Dude A was upset about someone talking smack about his sister too, so he's just as bad as Dude B". Or at least most people wouldn't. But we also don't say "It's fine to punch someone in the gut because at least he didn't cut the guy's throat". Dude A probably gets a night in the cells and a minor punishment, maybe a conviction for assault and released on parole for time served. He's got some anger issues and probably some issues in his relationshp with women. B gets serious jail time.

> now it's somehow become "shitty, but not as bad, because in some other land you'd get shot instead," (and similar excuses)

Nobody's making excuses. That's all on you and how you're deciding to ascribe motivations to other posters. Let me say it again - nobody is saying it's OK. I'm not defending anything. If you think I am I'd invite you to re-read the thread.

> How much closer must UK come to iranian levels, before you start seeing the parallels between the behaviour of the two governments?

One is a strict conservative, theocratic dictatorship that is commiting mass murder in order to hold on to power. The other is a troubled democracy that, as far as anyone can tell, isn't murdering its citizens to keep order but has made some pretty fucked up decisions about what constitutes terrorism and a terrorist organisation. Both of these are bad. But they aren't the same, there are some parallels in their actions, though not so much in either motivation or outcomes. And proclaiming that the actions of the UK or the EU are the same as Iran or Russia or China provides cover for atrocities IMHO, and is straight out of the propaganda playbook those countries like to put about the place. It also just destroys nuance of discussion when basically anything negative may as well be Hitler.

> 10 years ago, getting arrested for wearing a tshirt

Was something that happened occasionally under varying different laws. It was shit then too.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/oct/11/manchester-man-ja...

And if you'd worn a pro-IRA t-shirt in the 80s/90s, you'd have faced arrest for that as well. Still would in fact. The major change that people have a problem with in the Plasticine/Palestine action cases is the classification of a pro-Human Rights, direct-action group as a terrorist organisation, and the suppression of speech as a result of that classification. If you'd like to see a list of all the organisations currently classified this way, there's one here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror...

I don't think many people in the UK have a real problem with this law as it applies to (say) ISIS, or the Wagner Group, though I know that in some other countries (US?) you are more likely to be able to show support for those without facing sanction because of stronger protections of free speech.

Re: Iran's internet blackout may become permanent, with access for elites only

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> perhaps they will now form pleasant relationships and have joyful interactions You do understand what’s happening in Iran, right? Hard to take your comment seriously.

A small price to pay, surely, to be rescued from the mind flaying less fortunate people in corporate hellholes must face daily. Even with ublock Origin, these corporations will build a profile on me. Not so in Iran, where people can live without the watchful eye of Google looking at everything they do.

I have a disdain for what online advertising has become and the data industrial complex that it empowers. Tbh, I think advertising should be regulated like porn and prohibited for those under age of 18.

With that said, what in the actual fuck makes you say this when ten(s) of thousands are being murdered in conjunction with this ad-free period you’re speaking so wistfully about?

Re: Iran's internet blackout may become permanent, with access for elites only

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A small price to pay, surely, to be rescued from the mind flaying less fortunate people in corporate hellholes must face daily. Even with ublock Origin, these corporations will build a profile on me. Not so in Iran, where people can live without the watchful eye of Google looking at everything they do.

I have a disdain for what online advertising has become and the data industrial complex that it empowers. Tbh, I think advertising should be regulated like porn and prohibited for those under age of 18. With that said, what in the actual fuck makes you say this when ten(s) of thousands are being murdered in conjunction with this ad-free period you’re speaking so wistfully about?

We should perhaps take heart that even if these terrible things are being done, some good is being done too. Privacy is a fundamental human right, and just as important as the others. We should not encourage the view that privacy is a luxury item, only for those who aren’t being jailed. It is as much a human right as the right to freedom of expression.

Some places you have the former and not the latter. Other places you have the latter and not the former. But human rights are important! Every one of them!

Re: Iran's internet blackout may become permanent, with access for elites only

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mossad is curious as well. They might want to indiscriminately make people's devices blow up in public again.

There are a lot of words one could use to describe the Israeli pager attack on Hezbollah, but indiscriminate isn’t one that leaps to mind, particular when compared against other contemporary military strikes

[dead]

Re: Iran's internet blackout may become permanent, with access for elites only

#355
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They said "tunnel"

If they mean a real proxy, that’s even more involved - you can’t just do that with BGP configurations and will need someone running what is basically a country-wide VPN in Russia or China (which will probably be very identifiable).

I’m really not sure what you’re going on about. Russia and China won’t cut off Iran and will be more than happy to have them pay to connect to VPN providers in country (eg the routes advertised will only let them connect to VPN providers). Or you can use botnets to proxy your traffic for you.

Re: Iran's internet blackout may become permanent, with access for elites only

#356
post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An even more apt analogy is France in New Caledonia. Back in 2024, the French territorial government used an anti-terrorism law to enforce DNS blocks in that overseas territory, for the express purpose of suppressing political protests (by New Caledonians angry at the French mainland government). > "Philippe Gomes, the former president of New Caledonia's government, told POLITICO the decision aimed to stop protesters…

> for the express purpose of suppressing political protests (by New Caledonians angry at the French mainland government). No, to stop the spread of targeted disinformation by foreign actors stoking those protests to turn into riots. (and if you need any proof, check out the protestors with Azeri flags, in New Caledonia. Azerbaijan's tinpot dictator hates France because France supported Armenia, so he's been trying va…

"aimed to stop protesters from "organizing reunions and protests"" is a direct quote from one of their top politicians. I'm not going to pretend I didn't read it.

There's foreign bad-actor misinformation in every country (Iran too!)—it's cynical, and specious, to say that excuses governments who take away their citizens' internet access. New Caledonia admitted specific intent to target "organizing protests". That's exactly the reason why they shouldn't have the power to cut off their internet (though really, no one should). They shouldn't be in that position of power over the protesting faction, because their disagreements are so strong that they can't help but abuse that power. They've delegimitized the protestors; by censoring them, they're not "protecting" them from foreign actors in some well-meaning paternalistic way (their rationalization), they are rather continuing their political battle by other methods.

It's an anti-pattern, all over the world right now, that groups of people who start off with irreconcilable political differences, devalue the legitimacy of the other group's speech and their right to speak it. One group calling another "mislead by propaganda" is an aspect of that delegimitization. This pattern needs to be called out and pushed back against, when it's used to rationalize silencing dissent.

Re: Iran's internet blackout may become permanent, with access for elites only

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is not even close to true en the first sentence, but it is true in the second paragraph. As I said, my ISP doesn't do this block. Are they defying the Spain government mandate? Are they facing penalties or prison? This is a private thing that Movistar /O2, mainly, is doing, to protect their football stream. Thes is like saying that the US government forces Disney to enforce tneir IP protection. Your last para…

The court orders cover only specific ISPs, if your ISP is not one of those, they are not defying the mandate. You can see right here https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/AN/openDocument/766326fb... > Are they defying the Spain government mandate? Nobody has claimed that this is a government mandate , it isn't. It's a court order, coming from the judiciary. While Americans might consider the judiciary to be a branch of…

You are misunderstanding everything:

1. The ISP ask a judge to ban some IPs, and the judge gives them the permission to do so, because they asked. A judge could ask every ISP to do so, but they don't. But the ISP must request permission to ban, that es the reason the ban is limited to some ISP.

2. It does not come from the judges, it comes from the ISP that request to do it. Some ISP don't care about football, so they don't ask, they don't ban, and they are not mandated nor allowed to ban.

3. Not true, please don't FUD. In Spain is extremely rare to be killed by the police, even resisting, unless you threat them with a gun for example. And there are more cases with guns or knifes that are peacefully defused, than "executions on the spot". I don't know what are your intentions lying like that, but they don't look good.

Re: Iran's internet blackout may become permanent, with access for elites only

#359
post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10 years ago, you'd be saying "call me when UK police starts arresting people for wearing a wrong t-shirt".

I'll make it easier for you: wake me up when the UK government slaughters 1% the amount of the protestors the Iranian government just did in two days. 400 protestors shot by machine guns mounted on SUVs in London. That just might be approaching slippery slope territory to the current Iranian actions. Currently I believe we are at zero protestors casually shot on the streets of the UK, so I fail to see the equivalency

Bad as the Iranian regime is, we know that foreign governments are actively working for regime change/collapse in Iran (Mossad boasted in public about being with the protesters on the ground in Iran, whether that's true or not it seems like a statement intended to make things worse). So maybe be extra careful where you source those death numbers claims.

UK is not, and will not be in the situation Iran is in for the foreseeable future. There will not be several powerful countries, some widely hated in UK and openly preferring a UK in smoking ruins to democratic government in the UK, calling for revolution there (although don't get me wrong, UK too could totally could use a revolution). UK has nuclear weapons. UK has a world-class surveillance apparatus, and doesn't have to contend with the cynical people running it getting regularly murdered or bought out by more powerful actors.

What all this means - and this has been the core message of just about all dissidents in western countries for decades - is that the people with control in the UK don't have to gun down hundreds (or tens of thousands, if you believe the colored reports) in the streets to cling to power. If it was their best option, they might.

Re: Iran's internet blackout may become permanent, with access for elites only

#360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they mean a real proxy, that’s even more involved - you can’t just do that with BGP configurations and will need someone running what is basically a country-wide VPN in Russia or China (which will probably be very identifiable).

I’m really not sure what you’re going on about. Russia and China won’t cut off Iran and will be more than happy to have them pay to connect to VPN providers in country (eg the routes advertised will only let them connect to VPN providers). Or you can use botnets to proxy your traffic for you.

Okay, but now you’re running a country-scale VPN service in Russia or whatever, and somebody has to pay for it. Or you have to acquire a botnet, again to handle the internet of a whole country. These are non-trivial barriers to overcome, and simply having transit to Russia does not solve them.
Post reply on HN