[HN Gopher] Russia to restrict Facebook access for 'censoring' i...
___________________________________________________________________
Russia to restrict Facebook access for 'censoring' its media
Author : awb
Score : 191 points
Date : 2022-02-25 16:48 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Russian here. Most comments here are pure nonsense. The _only_
| reason Facebook risks getting blocked is because in Russia it is
| predominantly used by dissidents and people in opposition to
| Putin 's regime. It doesn't block groups, events, etc at
| Kremlin's behest. So it should be blocked.
|
| Upd: many commenters here clearly misread my comment, or maybe
| it's my poor English. "It should be blocked" means that it is in
| Putin's interest to block it, but better under some pretext. I am
| personally in a very sharp opposition to Putin's criminal
| syndicate.
| kodablah wrote:
| > it is predominantly used by dissidents and people in
| opposition to Putin's regime [...] So it should be blocked.
|
| Well, at least your stance is clear. Obviously most will
| disagree with a government blocking a site for being used by
| the current leader's opposition.
| tadfisher wrote:
| I don't think you're reading the post charitably or
| correctly.
| kodablah wrote:
| Ah, I see...maybe the OP means FB should be blocked because
| they are not doing individual blocking at the government's
| request? I think it's still pretty easy to disagree with
| that justification too (same as I'd disagree if a US ISP
| was forced to block a Russian site that didn't kowtow to US
| requests). And it's still easy to see that the reasons
| given by the OP for why it risks getting blocked are
| disagreeable to.
| cutemonster wrote:
| (I asked what was meant, in a sibling reply)
| cutemonster wrote:
| It sounds as if you think FB _should_ block things at Kremlin
| 's behest, and since FB doesn't, it deserves to get blocked
| itself -- is that what you meant?
|
| (Or did you mean that therefore it was logical for Putin to
| block FB? Or, well, maybe you wrote something different from
| what you wanted to write, not being a native English speaker)
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| It is logical for Putin to block Facebook, but better under
| some pretext.
|
| I don't support Putin's policy in the slightest, up to the
| point of being detained by the police at a protest rallies.
| kodablah wrote:
| Makes sense, apologies for the misinterpretation.
| NoOn3 wrote:
| Invasion is not a good decision. But Ukraine had some problems
| with radicals, with crimes and with respect to other languages in
| their country...
| jacquesm wrote:
| The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other, and is in
| part propaganda.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Ukraine banned vkontakte since 2017. Just to add some
| perspective.
|
| "This is different" I guess.
| slezyr wrote:
| It just happens that VK was hijacked right before taking over
| Crimea.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VK_(service)#Durov's_dismissal
| kahrl wrote:
| It's different because Russian sites contain ONLY propaganda,
| and dissent from the state is ALWAYS silenced.
|
| Take this this propaganda false equivalence nonsense and shove
| it.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Saying vkontakte is ONLY propaganda is as dumb as saying
| Facebook is ONLY propaganda. They're social networks, and
| they also have your aunt's recipes and baby pictures.
| akho wrote:
| Vk is more of an amplifier than its own propaganda channel.
| (Like Facebook sometimes)
|
| There are also very different people on there.
|
| Banning shit like RT or other Russian state media makes more
| sense.
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| With Russia actively invading Ukraine at the moment, yeah it's
| different.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > "This is different" I guess.
|
| I should say so. Despite all of its hard-earned criticism,
| Facebook isn't the social media arm of a foreign invader.
| cutemonster wrote:
| And Putin was using VK for psychological warfare. It was
| crazy it didn't get blocked sooner -- letting an aggressive
| threatening dictator have instant access to spreading
| targeted propaganda
| thinkingemote wrote:
| A good tactic would be to point out to Russians that their
| government is censoring political things for them. They like to
| think they are free and above the hypocrisy of the west. But the
| key thing is the West allows it's citizens to criticise itself.
| The Russians do not have that freedom. It's basically becoming
| like China in the way of censorship and lack of freedom, to
| protect it's citizens and the fatherland. To sacrifice for the
| country.
|
| In the west we can say "my government is bad" and give examples
| of a number of terrible and true and shameful things. In Russia
| or China they cannot even admit truth.
|
| One tactic that we see from China and Russia is to criticise the
| chaotic nature of protests in the West and (again) to emphasise
| the hypocrisy on how the West deals with protests of the Left vs
| Right. The thing is that there IS a lot of truth here. But the
| key thing is that these protests occur nonetheless. In repressive
| regimes there is no freedom to protest. You cannot have hypocrisy
| in how you deal with political protests if you do not have
| political protests!
| throwawaygjdbsj wrote:
| throwawayay02 wrote:
| What a ridiculous take. Yes the Russian govmt censors a lot of
| things. The west also does it. And more than plain censoring,
| which happens mostly in China, what happens the most is just
| building a narrative: only show what you need to be shown,
| diminish opposing views, augment yours, shape the narrative by
| building a fake opposition. These are basic strategies done
| since before world war 2.
|
| The russians by and large know very well not to trust the
| government. But who will work best in their interest instead,
| will NATO? Would the US trust Europe to fix their two-party
| "democracy" and lack of healthcare?
| [deleted]
| trasz wrote:
| > In repressive regimes there is no freedom to protest.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_and_dissent_in_China
|
| "The number of annual protests has grown steadily since the
| early 1990s, from approximately 8,700 "mass group incidents" in
| 1993[1] to over 87,000 in 2005."
| reaperducer wrote:
| Those numbers are 17 years old. I think we need newer data
| than that to come to a conclusion.
|
| The number of protests in Hong Kong has plummeted in the last
| two years. Even annual events have been cancelled because of
| the new laws that can land people in jail for even being near
| a protest site, or a historically/politically significant
| location at the wrong time.
| toxik wrote:
| You have left out the part of that article that says that
| these protests are only about local issues and do not worry
| or concern the CCP.
| dshpala wrote:
| Heh, "point to Russians". I have several friends in Moscow, and
| up until the last few days they were in complete denial about
| Putin's intentions or troops buildup. There were memes, jokes,
| etc.
|
| The propaganda inside Russia is very strong. Russians need
| sanctions, they need to start suffering (economically or
| otherwise). And then maybe they'll wake up.
| skybrian wrote:
| How much have they changed their minds in the last few days?
| reaperducer wrote:
| _How much have they changed their minds in the last few
| days?_
|
| Enough that there are protests in most major Russian cities
| against the invasion of Ukraine.
|
| Just yesterday, Moscow police arrested over 1,000
| protesters. They can only keep up that pace for so long.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Not until there are more protestors than the police can
| conceivably arrest will it make a real difference, but
| there is some chance of that happening.
| pessimizer wrote:
| This can't be true, because this thread started off with
|
| > In repressive regimes there is no freedom to protest.
| You cannot have hypocrisy in how you deal with political
| protests if you do not have political protests!
| jacquesm wrote:
| They are arrested wholesale.
| vkou wrote:
| 150,000 people in Washington, DC, protested the Iraq war
| when it was getting started.
|
| It, uh, didn't accomplish much. I'm not sure that the
| Ministry of Foreign Affairs is any more inclined to
| listen to protests than the Department of State was.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| The protests won't last long. Any protester risks getting
| a few years sentence going out every time, and russian
| prisons are hell on earth.
| throw7 wrote:
| Really? non-democratic regimes have proved again and
| again that the plebes can be contained.
| gruez wrote:
| >The propaganda inside Russia is very strong. Russians need
| sanctions, they need to start suffering (economically or
| otherwise). And then maybe they'll wake up.
|
| What makes you sure that it won't cement their position even
| more? Western countries hurting russia's economy via
| sanctions basically confirms the "evil westerners" narrative.
| MrYellowP wrote:
| dave_sullivan wrote:
| No good side, but one is better than the other.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Which one? It's not obvious.
| eloff wrote:
| Evil is a pretty strong word to toss around like that.
| The Nazis were evil. How is the West evil?
|
| Western countries do a number of bad things, but they're
| not evil.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"How is the West evil?"
|
| Killing millions of people after WWII for sure qualifies.
| What else would you call it?
| z3c0 wrote:
| Drone assassination programs are pretty evil.
|
| Oh wait, did you mean evil to _us_ , or evil to everybody
| else?
| adambatkin wrote:
| The parent asserted that Nazis are evil. While I'm sure
| there is a range of behaviors that constitute "evil" I
| don't think a drone assassination campaign in any way
| compares to the deliberate and systematic attempt to
| remove all members of certain groups (i.e. Jewish people,
| among others) from Earth.
| alexryndin wrote:
| > they need to start suffering
|
| You just stated that the people of the whole country need
| to start suffering. There already was period in our history
| when one politicial stated that we must all be destroyed as
| an ethnic group and our lands repopulated, and that was not
| good at all.
| labster wrote:
| Ukrainians are already suffering. And Americans too will
| suffer from the sanctions that Americans impose. But I am
| willing to suffer economically to protect a free republic
| that truly represents its people, because they are
| people, just like me.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| Euh... Europe is taking all the 'consequences' and
| economic damage from the sanctions, not the US.
| throwawayay02 wrote:
| I do not believe you know any Russians at all, from my
| experience.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| Denial doesn't mean they were influenced by propaganda.
| Invasion just didn't make any sense and even among the
| opposition there was a belief that Putin is evil but
| rational.
| jacquesm wrote:
| So now the conclusion is he's not rational. Now what? A non
| rational dictator sitting on a very large number of nuclear
| weapons is not a good thing for the world.
| FpUser wrote:
| I am not in Russia and I did not believe that Putin will
| attack. I did not expect him to be that kind of retard.
|
| >"Russians need sanctions, they need to start suffering"
|
| When you talk like this about whole nation I am not even sure
| what to call it. Well actually I do but I did not yet have
| enough of HN.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| > They like to think they are free and above the hypocrisy of
| the west.
|
| This statement shows you have no idea what Russians like to
| think. Better stop embarrassing yourself further with such
| opinions.
|
| Source: I'm actually Russian.
| witrak wrote:
| You seem to believe strongly that the fact that you are
| Russian makes your opinion of what Russians think (or not
| think) absolutely true.
| alexryndin wrote:
| ofc the fact that I'm Russian don't make me think that my
| opinion is true, and yet I strongly don't like when someone
| describes the opinions and thinking of all Russians without
| exception, sometimes don't even trying to study and
| understand the roots of the problem between our countries.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Well, he is at least speaking for himself, likely has a
| good idea of what friends and family think so you can take
| it as a datapoint.
|
| And I would put more stock in that than in someone who
| isn't Russian.
| filoleg wrote:
| I am actually Russian too (left the country a bit over a
| decade ago), and I disagree.
|
| Of course not everyone in Russia is like that, far from it.
| But a very significant number of actual average Russians are
| like that. While US coverage of any events is far from
| perfect with tons of conflicting info, there is no straight
| up "you aren't allowed to publish or see this, or else suffer
| the consequences" thing going here, unlike in Russia. You
| could criticize the government all you want, in public too.
|
| Just the fact that you aren't allowed to, it would create an
| echochamber stronger than any self-induced FB echochamber in
| the US can suck one into. The main problem is that instead of
| many different echochambers, you primarily get one - the one
| controlled by the russian government. And your only options
| are being in it or not. The issue is that there are only 2
| options, and you are heavily disincentivized from opting out.
| And the larger an echochamber grows, the stronger and more
| influential it gets. The chilling effect alone is crazy and
| suppresses people from saying anything. I was called a
| "traitor" by my classmates back when I was leaving the
| country. What a betrayal, wanting to actually get good
| education and live a good life outside of that place. And
| that was a bit over a decade ago, before russia-west
| relations got heated up to the current point, and years
| before Crimean invasion has even started.
|
| Edit: half the replies down this exact thread in sibling
| comments seem to be a great illustration of what happens when
| the type of echochamber I described actually ends up working.
| chinathrow wrote:
| Enlighten us then.
| alexryndin wrote:
| I like to think that peaceful EU and USA continue to pump
| Ukraine with weapons in this fratricidal war. I also like
| to think that in recent days many countries have blocked a
| number of Russian media while continuing to pretend that
| they are actually fighting for freedom of speech.
|
| Source: I'm Russian too.
| stavros wrote:
| I find it interesting that you have an issue with the
| _other_ side having guns.
| alexryndin wrote:
| I have an issue when the other side have guns _and_ use
| it against their own people for 8 years. Yeah, I have
| strong issue with that.
| trhway wrote:
| I fully supported surgical separation of Donbass along
| the ceasefire lines. That would have stopped people
| suffering there, and would have been a forever reminder
| to Ukraine what happens when you let your nationalist
| radicals run unleashed and turn blind eye to their
| actions. What has been happening these 2 last days -
| killing people all across the Ukraine - has nothing to do
| with it, and is a shame on my old country. I hope and
| believe Ukrainians will get victorious in the end while
| that catastrophe of a war for Russia will, similar like
| defeat in Afghanistan, result in total crash of Putin's
| regime, and may be, just may be, i don't hold my breath
| here, some awakening of Russian society as a result of a
| burning shame and repentance.
|
| Current Russian society has proven incapable of self-
| management as well as incapable of responsible management
| of such a large territory and military force including
| nukes. I suppose that as a result Russia, similar to
| Germany after WWI and WWII, may be broken up with limits
| on military force, giving up nukes, and other
| restrictions. In short - Putin with clear permission from
| the whole society, save for a few brave souls, blew up
| any last chances for Russia to be a great country.
| jacquesm wrote:
| You are misinformed and are repeating quite a bit of
| Russian propaganda. There is another Russian active here
| upthread, maybe have a chat with him?
| sodality2 wrote:
| I would love a source.
| larkost wrote:
| I have Russian-speaking Ukrainian friends. They have told
| me that there is no such pomgrom in Ukraine against them
| or people like them. They have told me multiple times
| that Russian friends of theirs keep telling them that
| they must be scared and they tell them that they are
| wrong. This is Russian propaganda that you are repeating,
| and has no base in truth.
| [deleted]
| qiskit wrote:
| emptysongglass wrote:
| Many of your points aren't true at all. You appear to be
| trying to make a false balance (a term I learned today) by
| casting doubt on the censorship and brutal repression of
| protests we know China performs. We have a bounty of evidence
| that WeChat is heavily monitored and censored. You can in
| fact test it today. We know that the recent anniversary of
| the Tiananmen Square Massacre was _heavily_ censored and
| dissidents detained and silenced. We also know that public
| figures who speak out against the regime are disappeared. Of
| the very many, I will mention Peng Shuai who spoke out
| against her sexual abuse by a senior Party member.
|
| So you don't appear to be making much of an argument at all,
| as even a cursory glance in the history books of the last
| year will reveal your false balance to be as empty as your
| accusation of its absurdity.
| qiskit wrote:
| > Many of your points aren't true at all.
|
| Would be nice if you pointed those out rather than making a
| blanket statement.
|
| > You appear to be trying to make a false balance (a term I
| learned today)
|
| False balance? You mean false equivalence? That's a well
| known propaganda term people have been using online for
| years. I find it hard to believe anyone learned it today.
|
| > We have a bounty of evidence that WeChat is heavily
| monitored and censored.
|
| Amazing. All social media is heavily monitored and censored
| everywhere. We can argue degrees but it's all censored.
|
| > We know that the recent anniversary of the Tiananmen
| Square Massacre was heavily censored and dissidents
| detained and silenced.
|
| There is a reason why we propagandize tianamen square and
| why they censor it. You might want to delve a bit further
| into tianamen square. It's not as black and white as
| propaganda makes it out.
|
| > We also know that public figures who speak out against
| the regime are disappeared.
|
| Like that chinese tennis player right. Or jack ma?
| Disappeared and then reappeared. Like magic.
|
| > So you don't appear to be making much of an argument at
| all, as even a cursory glance in the history books of the
| last year will reveal your false balance to be as empty as
| your accusation of its absurdity.
|
| You claimed most of my points aren't true and yet didn't
| touch on a single point of mine. Just brought up standard
| anti-china propaganda.
| darkarmani wrote:
| > 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 you think you are. You are
| confirming that they were disappeared for a LONG time by
| the gov't.
| witrak wrote:
| >> We have a bounty of evidence that WeChat is heavily
| monitored and censored.
|
| > Amazing. All social media is heavily monitored and
| censored everywhere. We can argue degrees but it's all
| censored.
|
| Well, similarly we could argue is a real difference
| between firecrackers and thousand pounds bombs.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| My colleague in China walked by a protest and accidentally
| pulled out his phone to check messages in sight of the
| protest.
|
| He was interviewed by state police for 10 hours the next
| Saturday.
| georgeglue1 wrote:
| 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.
| MrYellowP wrote:
| nvegater wrote:
| He didn't said he believed that I think. They do have an
| independent fact checker. Wether that's effective or makes
| sense is another question.
| georgeglue1 wrote:
| Independent != Unbiased!
|
| Facebook, of course, can hire biased independent fact
| checkers. At least Facebook is not 100% determining truth of
| everything on their own.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| "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.
| dr_hooo wrote:
| Not a FB user, so I'm genuinely curious what the GOP agenda
| is being surpressed?
| agumonkey wrote:
| Is this the first big nation military conflict in the era of
| ubiquitous video streaming ?
|
| It feels like this is de-staging the aggression, you see more
| details, you see more failures, it feels less impressive than
| past fights on TV for instance.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| Syria had/has combat videos. I think that was the first to
| happen while it was ubiquitous. It did not make it any less
| intense or terribly.
| abcc8 wrote:
| Potato quality footage was ubiquitous, though there is some
| HD. All the Ukraine footage I've seen looks like much higher
| definition.
| monetus wrote:
| I was traumatized watching a go pro on a tank, with the
| other side having poorer footage streaming at the same
| time, in the same place, through live leak.
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| All the US conflicts in the past 10 years were in the era of
| ubiquitous video streaming.
| d0mine wrote:
| US showed it can kill journalists (!) who are not aligned
| enough (remember wikileaks video).
|
| It might skew how wars are portrayed.
| MrYellowP wrote:
| [deleted]
| agumonkey wrote:
| I'm sorry if I look stupid (too many crysis I guess) but I
| fail to remember what conflict started between the US and
| another nation in this decade.
| awb wrote:
| The US was involved in military operations on the ground in
| Iraq & Afghanistan and in the air in Libya & Syria in the
| 2010s. Not sure about boots on the ground vs. ISIS.
| nathanyz wrote:
| The infowars are going to be interesting to watch on this one
| birdyrooster wrote:
| lol did you just unironically use infowars or are you
| referencing Alex Jones
| nathanyz wrote:
| Wasn't meant as a reference to Alex Jones, but can see why it
| might seem that way after re-reading it ;)
| pyronik19 wrote:
| No fan of Russia, but to pretend that facebook is some neutral
| platform that isn't trying to push their own political agenda is
| naive.
| deutschewelle wrote:
| Not sure why this comment is being downvoted, there is credible
| evidences that support this view, if not obvious from the US
| elctions
| lostmsu wrote:
| Because it is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
| hereforphone wrote:
| If you read HN comment threads you may come to the
| conclusion that tangential discussions are the norm.
| [deleted]
| actuator wrote:
| Could you please share them?
|
| All I recall was accusations by political parties from both
| sides.
|
| Just because some content got popular amongst some cohort, it
| doesn't mean it was being pushed as an agenda. That is a
| problem any platform that depends on user activity to surface
| content will have, that you might see whatever the other side
| wants to share too.
| jonas21 wrote:
| Strangely, it was obvious to both sides in the US election
| that Facebook was pushing the agenda of the other side.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| 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.
| ithkuil wrote:
| That's true. But that's not what people mean when they
| accuse Facebook or Twitter about having their political
| agenda.
| seattle_spring wrote:
| Moderating away rule breaking content that _most_ people don 't
| want to see is very much akin to disallowing state-sponsored
| war propaganda: a good thing.
| vkou wrote:
| Okay but we allow _our_ state sponsored war propaganda on it.
|
| At some point, many free speech maximalists get driven into
| an ethical corner. This is one of them, and we discover that
| all of a sudden, many of them only support propaganda that
| they _like_. (But they will bend over backwards trying to
| come up with weak reasons for why bullshit from RT is totally
| different from bullshit from Qanon.)
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Russia isn't worried about Facebook's bias; Russia is worried
| that Facebook doesn't share Russia's own bias, at least not to
| the degree it would like. Russian citizens have relationships
| with Ukrainians, and Russia doesn't want its people to see
| their friends and family murdered by Russian soldiers.
| arrrg wrote:
| Content moderation is hard and Facebook often makes mistakes
| and sometimes even intentionally does harmful stuff vs Russia
| invading its neighbor with no justification at all.
|
| Yeah, that's a comparison that does make sense to make. I'm
| sarcastic here.
|
| Are people deliberately missing the point or intentionally
| evil?
| nest0r wrote:
| For like 10 years in every thread about social media someone
| brings up their "own political agenda" but never specifies what
| they mean. If the main objective is maximizing profits there
| can't be a strong political agenda because with every shift in
| governance the way to maximize profit will also shift. This
| whole political debate about social networks is just stupid
| they are cooperations first and if there is profit to be made
| they will take it no matter if it's left or right.
| gdulli wrote:
| > If the main objective is maximizing profits there can't be
| a strong political agenda because with every shift in
| governance the way to maximize profit will also shift
|
| Even more simply, companies like Facebook and Twitter are
| stuck in the middle if for no other reason than they can't
| lose either half of their audience.
|
| They're happy if a few extremists peel off to their "free
| speech" platforms, because it's less headache for them and
| they don't have to worry about those platforms appealing to
| the mainstream. They themselves will obviously never do
| anything to lose the mainstream on either side.
| cmehdy wrote:
| Limiting Facebook access also ensures that the Russians abroad
| who carry a voice against Putin in the language of their fellow
| citizens also get silenced/ignored. It's the bully closing his
| eyes to the damage he's doing, except that he's dragging 140
| million people with him.
| mlkmt wrote:
| anyone knows how Russia limited the access?
| abdullin wrote:
| (lived in Russia until 2021, not authorative source of info)
|
| All ISP providers are required to have black boxes installed
| on-site. These boxes can do traffic shaping (e.g. Twitter is
| degraded) and basic filtering based on IP addresses. I think,
| deep packet inspection is also feasible.
|
| Config updates are pushed centrally to these boxes.
|
| Self-managed VPNs still work.
| cutemonster wrote:
| What about Tor?
|
| Or if Twitter gets more IP addresses, they'll work for a
| short while, until black box config updated?
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Tor provides degraded access without government
| intervention.
| orthoxerox wrote:
| Tor is for nerds, they don't count. You can't expect
| regular people to run Tor on their phones.
| baybal2 wrote:
| These ISP blackboxes central command should be a prime target
| now.
| [deleted]
| keewee7 wrote:
| In the 2000s and 2010s Russia lowered bandwidth on Western social
| media (and webmail) platforms to promote local alternatives. It
| worked and most Russians are not on Facebook, twitter and reddit.
|
| However Russia failed to suppress and replicate YouTube that is
| the only massively popular Western platform in Russia.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| That's nonsense, top to bottom. There were no technical means
| for that, not to speak of the intent (the censorship laws were
| implemented in 2013). The centralization which made slowing
| something down technically possible only really began in late
| 2015 or so, and wasn't ready till 2018. The reason most
| Russians aren't on Facebook is VK and OK. Reddit just never
| took off because there were plenty of domestic alternatives
| long before it, and Twitter is super popular. And 'Russia' is
| not a single entity.
| konart wrote:
| >However Russia failed to suppress and replicate YouTube that
| is the only massively popular Western platform in Russia.
|
| I'd say Instagram is as popular. Not sure about other services.
| toomanydoubts wrote:
| I'd say Pornhub is also pretty popular too. Don't ask me how
| I know it.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| According to alexa xhamster is #1: https://external-
| preview.redd.it/1DoqXJyNWpUH1wldP4bkwMTCu9N...
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Tik Tok is popular among young people.
| rossmohax wrote:
| TikTok is not western though
| bonzini wrote:
| It is western in the sense that it is marketed to the
| west. Chinese people use Douyin instead.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Tiktok is marketed to everywhere that isn't China. That's
| not the same as western.
| kgeist wrote:
| >In the 2000s and 2010s Russia lowered bandwidth on Western
| social media (and webmail) platforms to promote local
| alternatives.
|
| > It worked and most Russians are not on Facebook, twitter and
| reddit
|
| As a Russian, it's the first time I'm hearing about it. Do you
| have a source? My impression was that the early local
| alternatives became more popular because they were better
| tailored to local realities (better localization, more detailed
| maps and suggestions etc.), it happened way before the
| government started slowing down some social networks in the
| late 2010's. For example, Google search initially failed to
| account for grammatical declension of Russian, and Yandex beat
| it by several years (i.e. Google would simply match words as
| is). Google Docs wasn't aware Io is a letter and its spellcheck
| marked all words with it as a spelling error. Or when it tells
| you the best shop nearby to buy toothpaste is in Oklahoma.
| There was simply lack of investment in Russian localization
| because our market wasn't very important to the US. I was one
| of the early adopters of VK (Facebook's alternative) in 2006
| and I remember Facebook wasn't even on my radar (I don't think
| I heard about it that much), a friend of mine simply sent me a
| link to VK, I got hooked and invited many more friends of mine.
| Zuckerberg visited Russia to promote Facebook in 2012 for the
| first time (the year they finally started a campaign to improve
| localization for Russia), but it was 6 years late. Youtube's
| alternative, Rutube, failed because they had nothing new to
| offer (in fact, I tried to use it, and it was a miserable
| experience) and Youtube was already widely popular. I honestly
| don't know why Twitter never took off here, no one uses it and
| there are no Russian alternatives either. What I want to say is
| that the local alternatives became popular long before
| Kremlin's crackdown on the Internet, it happened pretty
| organically.
| karaterobot wrote:
| I wasn't able to find anything about Russia throttling
| Twitter, Facebook etc. in the early 2000s, in order to stifle
| or control competition. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of
| absence, but I couldn't find anything about it.
|
| Russia has throttled access to Twitter, listing pretty silly
| reasons, when really it was because they were in a lawsuit
| over Twitter not removing content they found objectionable.
| Here's a source for that:
| https://freedomhouse.org/country/russia/freedom-net/2021
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| Facebook founded in 2003 and got its name in 2004. Wasn't
| noticeable in Russia until 2010s, was cloned and
| outcompeted by VK. Still popular only because Vk is now
| controlled by government (VK is simply a better platform).
| Twitter was founded in 2006, so in the early 2000s it
| simply did not exist. Has never been a big thing in Russia,
| even when Medvedev got an account. Government started
| paying any attention to social networks only after Medvedev
| was elected (or was that actually LiveJournal?), but I'm
| not sure they were taking it seriously until 2012, when
| Bolotnaya happened.
| Ambolia wrote:
| The internet just feels so small currently. The technology seems
| to be all here to make it distributed and open it up, but the
| convenience of centralization and the lack of network-effects of
| the distributed solutions seem to be the bottle-neck that stop
| them from gaining traction.
| erichocean wrote:
| If someone invented an algorithm to enable network effects on
| decentralized networks, they'd secure a place in computing
| history.
| throwaway_4ever wrote:
| Open protocols (HTTP and email) have even greater network
| effects than closed solutions (Facebook). However, you still
| need a strong push in the beginning, which protocols don't
| usually have the funding while VC burns $100 million in an
| initial push.
| [deleted]
| el_ravager wrote:
| Unfortunately, it just doesn't seem to be the kind of
| problem that capitalism is able to solve.
| LightG wrote:
| I remember a lovely time when my RSS was pulling in data from a
| huge and various number of independent sources, non-
| algorythmically, all compiled nicely in GReader ... without
| social media flame wars hanging off the end of every link.
|
| /random-cry-against-centralisation-of-the-internet
| Ambolia wrote:
| Not necessarily against algorithmic feeds, but would be nice
| if you could chose your own algorithm, or just pure
| chronological feeds like you mentioned.
| rr808 wrote:
| 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
| emteycz wrote:
| What do you mean by connecting to Russian servers? Telegram has
| nothing to do with Russia.
| rr808 wrote:
| Yeah you're right I thought it was totally Russian, but is
| just started by Russians and is popular there. I've amended
| servers to SM in my comment.
| atlantas wrote:
| What are they saying?
| rr808 wrote:
| Russians are the victims and are trying to get peace of
| course. Browsers will auto translate for you.
| asplake wrote:
| Honestly, I just wish Facebook, Twitter, Google, and even
| Microsoft and Apple just withdrew. The Russian government has
| only contempt for them anyway
| hereforphone wrote:
| Several if not all of these companies actively censor content
| based on their own ideas of what does and does not constitute
| acceptable expressions of acceptable ideology. A healthy amount
| of contempt for them is fine.
| hughrr wrote:
| No keep them up. There's so much intelligence coming from them
| via social media.
| csee wrote:
| And it's good to show Russians the true nature of what's
| happening. If you remove western social media then they just
| get the state narrative.
| kobalsky wrote:
| cold war CIA wouldn't have dreamed of having a propaganda
| machine like social networks provide.
|
| it's a new war theater, they are not going away.
| chrononaut wrote:
| Microsoft and Apple perhaps, but I suspect it's advantageous
| for Facebook, Twitter, and Google to remain otherwise the state
| propaganda apparatus would only get stronger.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Aren't Russians mostly on VK and Yandex anyway?
| r721 wrote:
| Still Facebook is pretty popular, Statista says the
| penetration rate is 39%:
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/867549/top-active-
| social...
| graphpercolator wrote:
| Yea of a 140 million people they all agree with Putin. 0%
| disagree with Putin and even if they did 0% would use
| Reddit to communicate with people outside of Russia.
|
| Come on.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Well my point is that if you shut down Russian access to
| western services, the Russians go to Russian services and
| only see what the Kremlin wants them to see. This doesn't
| harm Putin, it effectively helps him undo Glasnost.
|
| If the Russian people can't read CNN, they read Pravda.
| agumonkey wrote:
| It's not working great it seems. A few russian kids came on
| reddit expressing no hatred against ukraine, but being
| powerless due to the oligarchic structure of Russian
| politics. It might be a fake account I don't know. But with
| the recent risky protests.. actually I don't know what to
| say. It seems that propaganda is somehow deeper on non
| Russian groups. Lots of people in other countries are rooting
| for russia based on west past failures.
| iso1631 wrote:
| > Lots of people in other countries are rooting for russia
| based on west past failures.
|
| In the UK that's Farage and Corbyn, one was a major
| architect of brexit and one was almost prime minister
| Buttons840 wrote:
| Isolating the people will lead them to viewing us as an
| outside group, and people can easily be made to hate
| another group. Isolating the people will only make it
| worse.
| tut-urut-utut wrote:
| You can't win the hearts of people only by propaganda. If
| someone comes from a country where NATO "introduced
| democracy" by bombing civilians and installing a puppet
| government, all Facebooks, Googles and Microsofts of the
| world will not help for those people to support USA over
| Russia, which didn't do anything wrong to them.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Maybe I'm paranoid, but I assume 100% of Russian content on
| Reddit is manufactured. Their government has just invested
| so much into psyops that it successfully undermined
| legitimate engagement (for me).
| the_af wrote:
| I don't follow that line of reasoning. If a few Russian
| kids express "no hatred against Ukraine" and claim to
| actually feel powerless at the oligarchic structure of
| their country (Russia), in which way do you feel this
| could be manufactured psyops? What purpose could this
| serve as propaganda, "Russians kids don't like Putin or
| the ruling system"?
|
| Wouldn't propaganda look more like "our country means
| Ukraine no harm, but in this case we are right because
| [reasons]"?
| TameAntelope wrote:
| It's being used right now to soften the perception of
| Russia ("See look, the Russian people don't approve of
| this!" as a way of implicitly arguing against sanctions)
| right now, that seems valuable.
|
| Also "chaos" has value. It's a big thing in how PsyOps
| works (from my limited understanding); when you sew
| chaos, you can get away with more.
| the_af wrote:
| > _" see look, the Russian people don't approve of this!
| Don't punish them with sanctions!"_
|
| But there have already been demonstrations against this
| war in Russia, with detainees and video footage showing
| this. And if you don't trust the footage, I'm sure
| _someone_ knows _someone_ in Russia who can attest to
| this.
|
| So we know at least _some_ people in Russia don 't
| support the invasion.
|
| More importantly, in my opinion: that kind of thinking is
| a trap. When your hypothesis is unfalsifiable, "all
| Russians online are lying, no matter what they say, and
| even when they agree with me" how is discourse possible
| at all? You cannot tell honest speech from propaganda
| because, by definition, all speech is propaganda?
| 988747 wrote:
| You can tell lies by saying nothing but the truth :) One
| example that comes to mind is the time of Solidarity
| revolution in Poland.
|
| It was a time where most Poles only had two TV channels
| (own by communists) and handful of radio stations (also
| controlled by communists) to choose from. Now, before the
| strike in Gdansk docks happened TV or radio did not cover
| crime rates at all. After the strike started, media
| started filling the news with reports of every murder,
| rape, burglary they could find. This created the
| impression that Solidarity pushed the country into total
| chaos, paving the way to introducing martial law, while
| the truth is (you can check that in police statistics
| from that time) the crime rates actually went DOWN
| significantly during that period.
|
| Now, did those TV channels lie or not? Every single crime
| they reported in the news was 100% truth, but the
| aggregate impression they created was 100% false.
| the_af wrote:
| I understand lies by omission.
|
| But in this case we are being suspicious of alleged
| Russian teenagers saying they don't hate Ukraine but feel
| powerless to condition their own government in Russia. I
| mean, that's almost an anti-Putin statement, how can it
| be misconstrued as pro-Putin psyops?
| 988747 wrote:
| Well, for one it creates an impression that "common
| people" of Russia are against Putin (which is false, he
| regularly gets 70+ percent approval ratings [1]), and
| this might discourage more severe economic sanctions
| against Russia (because sanctions would affect those
| "common people" more than they would affect oligarchs)
|
| [https://www.statista.com/statistics/896181/putin-
| approval-ra...]
| TameAntelope wrote:
| I A) said I was probably paranoid and B) I didn't say
| they were lying, I said I assume they are. I'm describing
| an effective heuristic to help me accurately predict the
| future. I believe using data from Reddit users purporting
| to be Russian teenagers seems too easy to exploit and
| therefore unhelpful, predictively.
| tyrfing wrote:
| Most of the propaganda is much more obvious than that,
| for the most part it ends up downvoted on Reddit. In this
| context, the messages are more like "give up and flee,
| it's inevitable" (alternately: staged video of a pile of
| bodies, seen yesterday; large formations deploying from
| Chechnya, etc), "the war is because of NATO expansion",
| "Nazi government". Just to name a few themes.
|
| I would also guess that 90% of propaganda you see is
| primarily people spreading it for ideological and non-
| monetary reasons, it just has to be seeded enough for the
| messages to be spread.
|
| One of the fascinating trends is that the most rapidly
| spreading stuff is purely visual, short video. The
| dominance of short clips is incredible, and allows for so
| much subtly misleading content.
| agumonkey wrote:
| More and more I start to believe most of communications
| are really noise to make the less aggressive camp pause
| and think if this makes sense at all, while the other
| camp marches on.
| graphpercolator wrote:
| Russia has a population of a 140 million people.
|
| It is utterly preposterous to believe not a single one
| uses Reddit AND doesn't agree with their government.
|
| Not to mention, where do you think those people would go?
|
| Maybe Reddit? Maybe that actually makes a ton of sense?
| [deleted]
| witrak wrote:
| Did you see what's going on r/Russia? You can be banned
| not for your comment there but for the fact you are on
| another subreddit. No, not for your comment there! It's
| enough that others are against the Russian invasion.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| I'm confused; where did I say I believed literally zero
| people from Russia who also disapprove of Putin use
| Reddit? I said I assume that to be the case, which is
| foundationally different; I don't know of a way to tell
| which is which, so in order to predict outcomes most
| accurately, I default to the position that I don't accept
| Reddit as a source for this.
| hoffspot wrote:
| odiroot wrote:
| There's always Telegram. People share channels with friends
| and family.
| EEMac wrote:
| twobitshifter wrote:
| It's in the international interest to keep them up to spread
| propaganda and counter Russian propaganda. The withdrawal of
| media would make the fight very one sided in favor of Russia.
| usrusr wrote:
| That might be a fire Russia has to go through before it gets
| better. A powerful counterargument is that tough control
| seems to work out just fine in China, but I'm not sure Russia
| would really be "culturally compatible" with the Chinese way
| rosmax_1337 wrote:
| More countries should follow suit, I'm tired of seeing media
| censored by Facebook, not to mention Youtube and Twitter in
| Northern Europe too. Platforms should be just that, platforms,
| not outlets. Now I understand many of you will want to point out
| that "Russia is worse" and that it is somehow different. I don't
| care who is worse or if Russia does it for bad reasons, it is bad
| enough over here that it is also the correct choice for my nation
| and your nations.
| ProAm wrote:
| They are not platforms though. A small part of them is a
| platform, but the rest is private entity with interests.
| NoOn3 wrote:
| Why Russia just don't open independent sites for it's media.
| People who want to know different opinions will be able to come
| there themselves. It's strange that they necessarily want to be
| on facebook and youtube...
| netXten wrote:
| Hi, Russian here, located in Moscow. I don't root for our
| president and current operation in UA is not something I like. I
| had to say words above, sorry, and that words are true since I am
| mostly committed to western values. Facebook would be restricted
| in Russia because they don't allow gov to publish their views,
| opinion and their "truth", like any other gov can. There are also
| intentions to block youtube and any other platform, which have
| many russian users and which block different "zvezda"-like
| channels/accounts. I also think no any real user watches
| "zvezda"-channel on youtube or any other internet-platform.
| Additionally, I think that "if you own a house, you could no be
| required to allow anyone to live with you"
| netXten wrote:
| And I forgot to ask a question. Why do you think that we all
| should feel pain of sanctions? Because we are not able to stand
| against gov? Well, we are not able. And I think noone would be
| able if there is such a law and permissions of authorities. And
| for sure we, who know English(ok, not as good like any EU-
| person knows) and not working in gov-structures are the most
| small part of russians who have different opinion
| [deleted]
| eganist wrote:
| > Why do you think that we all should feel pain of sanctions?
| Because we are not able to stand against gov? Well, we are
| not able.
|
| Every person can. That's why sanctions exist: to incentivize
| a government to focus on its people and isolate a violent
| government from the world, or conversely, for a people to
| hold their government accountable.
|
| What would you propose the world do instead of sanctions when
| diplomacy alone has clearly failed?
| coward-guy wrote:
| 13415 wrote:
| The victims are the people in Ukraine, not you. People are
| dying there and the country has been dragged into chaos.
| Russia is 100% the aggressor in this case. If you don't want
| to feel the pain of sanctions, you better do something to
| change your government. This might not appear fair to you and
| certainly isn't easy, but don't forget that life is currently
| even less fair to the Ukrainians who die defending their
| country.
| droptablemain wrote:
| It's not that simple. What about the 14,000 killed in the
| DPR and LPR over the past years?
| 13415 wrote:
| His posts reeks of unreflected self pity and all you can
| offer is whataboutism?
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| >> Why do you think that we all should feel pain of
| sanctions?
|
| I feel bad for people in Russia who don't want that war
| either, sanctions will hurt.
|
| But:
|
| 1. Sanctions are a way to exert pressure and say "don't DO
| that". They're _supposed_ to hurt. The other effective way to
| send that message is to use actual force. I 'm sure people of
| Russia would prefer that _less_.
|
| 2. As a kid from Sarajevo, I feel Ukrainan's pain a LOT more
| today than yours, because they ARE being shelled and bombed
| and besieged and starved. You are not. Count your lucky
| stars.
|
| 3. As others pointed, there are choices. At this point,
| mostly shitty choices, all around, for all involved. I for
| one ran the fuck away from that part of the world. That was a
| personal, selfish choice (well, in reality, made by my
| parents, but I sure as heck supported them). Others protest
| secretly. Others, braver and less selfish and more
| idealistic, protest loudly. Yet others take up arms. Much as
| Canadians let alone world like to find things to complain
| about US (often validly), they did hash these things in a
| rebellion and a Civil war and again in the violent protests
| of the 70's... and they seem poised to be hashing them out
| violently again. Point being, it's not easy ANYwhere to get
| things even remotely right or fair or just or peaceful. I'm
| not selfless enough to die fighting a government; but I
| recognize it is an option and a choice.
|
| So what I'm saying is, today, people of Russia are not at top
| of my personal priority list of people to feel sorry for.
| You're not absent from it, but everything is a limited
| resource. Sorry :-/
| dtx1 wrote:
| > Why do you think that we all should feel pain of sanctions?
|
| We want Russia to stop their criminal war on Ukraine. Either
| by government action, open revolt or a population starving in
| the streets. The only other option is nuclear holocaust.
| osigurdson wrote:
| I don't want to see anyone starving on the streets but
| massive civil disobedience or a nation-wide strike by the
| Russian people would be incredible to see.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's what got Poland its freedom. The one thing any
| dictator really fears is a mass uprising.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Sure, give Putin his own 2 March (O.S.) / 15 March (N.S.)
| 1917.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Because we are not able to stand against gov?
|
| But you can.
|
| > Well, we are not able
|
| No, you won't.
|
| That's fine but don't make it seem like there is no choice,
| there is plenty of evidence of people in Russia protesting
| and they have made a different choice than you.
|
| And "current operation" is distancing language. It's an
| invasion or a war, not an operation.
| kmogpfdk wrote:
| There are very severe consequences for protesting. I don't
| blame him if he puts his and his family's lives first.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I don't blame him either. I'm just pointing out there is
| a choice.
|
| Totally understood that not everybody is in a position to
| make that choice, now or maybe ever. But there is safety
| in numbers.
|
| https://www.inyourpocket.com/gdansk/the-story-of-
| solidarity-...
|
| FWIW I was in Poland at the time, the people there were
| absolutely phenomenal, and the amount of personal
| hardship and risk endured blew me away. Unstoppable, they
| would have happily run their country into the ground
| first. Big difference: they had relatively little left to
| lose, Poland had been bled dry by the Soviets over
| decades. By contrast Russians today have far more to
| lose, or so they may believe, when in fact they probably
| have more to lose from Putin's continued presence.
|
| A dictator is one thing, an unhinged dictator quite
| another.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Just vote harder guys, and make pithy signs.
|
| Protests don't even work in the west, how can they work in
| Russia?
| jacquesm wrote:
| Protests work: if they are large enough.
| willcipriano wrote:
| That's sort of a no true scottsman. Occupy wall street
| resulted in nothing, BLM protests were huge to no lasting
| effect, massive anti war protests in the early 2000's
| resulted in a couple decades of war. What ones recently
| were big enough? Million man march? That was just LBJ
| buying votes if you ask him about it privately.
| jacquesm wrote:
| None of those resulted in crippling the country, which is
| the level you need.
|
| Without Russia propping him up Lukashenko would be out by
| now.
|
| Think Solidarity, not BLM and get the whole country to
| grind to a halt. That _will_ make a difference. By the
| time the police and the army have to decide if they want
| to open fire on their family it can be won. But for that
| to happen something major will have to change in Russia
| first.
| willcipriano wrote:
| In Canada they just had protests that crippled the
| country, they just took food and the ability to bank or
| heat themselves from the protestors until they gave up.
| No change. Imagine if Trudeau had a gulag.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That was a few hundred people at best. Anyway, I can see
| that you believe strongly that protests don't work, I've
| been eyewitness to protests that _did_ work and that
| changed the direction of a country in a massive way.
|
| Those instances are rare, but that's an existence proof
| that you can't deny (and there are, historically, more
| examples).
|
| Note that the support for those Canadian protests amongst
| ordinary Canadians was minimal.
| myko wrote:
| protests worked in russia in 1917
| gutitout wrote:
| This incredible high brow view is a stain on what is
| happening in Russia. I'm in America and I am not at all
| surprised that our private company's are in the pocket of
| our government interests, once again. This would feel
| like ANOTHER provocation, if you are a Russian official.
| I wonder if we will see Americans realize that (at least
| in part) this Russian aggression is a retaliation to how
| the USA / EU policies have put the Ukrainian people in
| incredible danger for their own political motives.
|
| To be clear, against all war and what is happening in
| Russia is also equally unacceptable.
| csee wrote:
| Why do you use the Putin propaganda euphemism "current
| operation" and not just call it an invasion or war of
| aggression.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-25 23:01 UTC)