Another Step Towards The Russian Splinternet
from the on-the-internet,-there-are-now-borders dept
Over the last few weeks, as Russia invaded Ukraine, you’ve probably heard some version of the story about how carefully Putin prepared for economic sanctions against the country. Whether or not those preparations actually have helped protect Russia is another story, but it wasn’t just the economics part of the equation that Russia was preparing for. We’ve written a few times over the past few years about how Russia was working to make sure it could disconnect its internet from the rest of the world’s internet — often referred to as the Russian “splinternet.” And now it’s happening.
Beyond things like blocking services like Facebook, there are still questions about the underlying infrastructure of the internet and how it handles this war. We’ve already discussed why it’s a terrible idea for Ukraine to ask internet infrastructure operations, including ICANN and RIPE to disconnect Russia from the internet, but that’s not stopping other internet infrastructure players from making questionable moves. At the domain registrar level, Namecheap has told Russian customers to look elsewhere for domains, and then late last week internet backbone provider Cogent announced that it would be cutting off service to Russia.
US internet infrastructure company Cogent Communications said on Friday that it is ending relationships with its Russian customers, including the state-owned Russian telecoms Rostelecom and TransTelekom. The global internet is interdependent, and Russia has other backbone providers besides Cogent to stay connected to the world, but the company is one of the biggest. Cogent said it weighed the risks that some people in Russia will lose global connectivity against the possibility that the Russian government will benefit from Cogent’s service in mounting disinformation campaigns and hacks against Ukrainian targets. “Our goal is not to hurt anyone. It’s just to not empower the Russian government to have another tool in their war chest,” Cogent CEO Dave Schaeffer told The Washington Post.
Of course, Russia seems perfectly fine with this turn of events. Many of those earlier preparations are playing out now as Russia makes moves to fully disconnect itself from the wider internet.
While some argue this is a good thing, it does seem likely to have a wide and lasting impact. Within Russia the lack of information from the outside world (and from inside Ukraine) seems to be part of what’s driving support for the invasion. Konstantinos Komaitis highlights the video of a Russian soldier explaining how they were duped into believing Ukraine was controlled by fascists and they’d be greeted as liberators, and he now realizes it’s all been lies. He appears to have been captured, so perhaps you can’t believe him to be genuine in his comments — and who knows if you can trust the translation — but he sure looks pretty genuine as he goes on for quite some time highlighting how the lack of information in Russia is what brainwashed many.
There are reasons to use sanctions to pressure Putin and his cronies, but having Russia cut itself off the internet — whether by its own hand or by organizations trying to engage in their own kinds of sanctions — seems likely to do more harm than good.
Filed Under: disconnections, russia, splinternet, ukraine
Companies: cogent
Comments on “Another Step Towards The Russian Splinternet”
It’s interesting that Russia is blocking fascbook. Now if the US can do the same we will be making some real progress.
What's this?
Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »
A reminder:
The people most hurt by war always have the least to do with causing it.
No Way!
The first causality of war is always the truth
Nah
As when dealing with an unruly small child.
Send them to bed without any supper and when they are ready to apologize and make amends, then you can consider readmitting them to society.
In this case, cutting them off is the right thing to do. If it’s inconvenient for them, that’s actually the point.
Or, in words of one syllable: Fuck ’em.
Sideways, if you want two syllables.
Re:
Keep thinking that wanting to hurt innocent people by cutting them off from the broader Internet makes you sound like a badass. See how far that gets you.
Re: Re: That's the objective of having sanctions
The idea of a sanction (economic, Internet, technical imports, you-name-it) is to make things sufficiently painful for either the population at large or the rulers that they will do something to make the pain stop.
I’ve seen many observations stating that the solution is to assassinate Putin since nothing short of that will make him stop this war. He won’t be able to rule when 99% of the population is after his head, so we need to make that 99% mad enough to get there.
Cutting off the Internet is another stop down the road, another turn of the screw. Hopefully the target population will get the idea soon; if not the screws need to continue to be tightened until they do.
That’s not a bad-ass; that’s reality. In case you hadn’t noticed, many people are dead today who would otherwise be going about their lives if Putin hadn’t suddenly decided that he should be Peter the Great.
He isn’t fit to lick the boots of Peter the Great.
Re: Re: Re:
You’re implying that sanctions will always have that effect. What happens when the people affected the most by those sanctions think better of their leader(s) than of the countries applying that pressure?
Second verse, same as the first.
How many of them are Russian? How many Russians might die of starvation or dehydration or lack of medical care due to the sanctions and the subsequent crumbling of the Russian economy?
I’m under no illusions about Vladimir Putin. He is a bastard, and the world would be better off without him in power. At the same time, I also believe that the current sanctions against Russia—and the after-effects thereof—will hurt Russians for years to come. That includes Russians who never wanted this war.
Yes, the sanctions are the best weapon that non-Ukranian countries have against Russia right now. That doesn’t mean I think they’re wholly morally righteous—they’re merely the best choice out of a lot of bad ones. God knows how many innocent people those sanctions will hurt while Putin and his favored oligarchs stay (mostly) out of harm’s way.
Re: Re: Re:2 Silence is not neutrality
In the case of mass murder, silence is not neutrality; silence is complicity.
Every Russian city, town, village and cabin in the woods needs to rise up against Putin and his despotic government. Every soldier, police officer and farmer with a shotgun needs to turn their weapons against Putin’s cronies and enablers.
Since that hasn’t happened yet the pressure is obviously not yet sufficient and therefore needs to be further increased.
The other alternative would be to drop a nuclear bomb onto the Kremlin but that would lead to even more undesirable side-effects than simply continuing to tighten the screws on the sanctions. At some point there won’t be a molecule allowed into or out of Russia and the problem will be solved either through complete containment as stated, or a popular revolt. Either one works for me.
Re: Re: Re:3
You’ve got a false assumption there, sport. You’re assuming that some amount of outside ‘pressure’ is going to accomplish that.
How many psychologists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Only one, but the lightbulb has to want to change.
Given what the average russian is told by state media, do you think they are going to spontaneously want to change? If so, more the fool you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 What ARE Russians told?
What is it YOU think the “average russian[sic] is told”? Where did you acquire your acute knowledge of this information? How did you vet it to perfect its chain of custody?
Oh. None of those. Got it. You are inferring that Russian state media lie to the Russians, and based on that one made-up fact you go on to imagine the rest.
Before the Internet… you might have had half a point. Now… not so much.
I’m pretty sure Russians are not as stupid as MAGAs. Here’s my proof: Russians would never vote for an idiot like DJT. See that proof? Foolproof. Contains no facts. Just like your reasoning.
E
Re: Re: Re:5
It’s not an inference, it’s verified fact. The fact you’re trying to argue otherwise is bewildering.
Re: Re: Re:3
Cutting the Internet only increases Putin’s power, as that removes sources of information that counter his lies. Making sure that Why do you think despotic regimes control information?It is because it is the only way that they can make their lies stand up. Enabling Russians to find out what is going on in Ukraine and the outside world is more likely to bring down Putin.
It is easier to get people to accept a war against the devils that they have only heard about from state sources, that to support a war against people they have become friends with because of common Interests.
Re: Re: Re:3
Much of your argumentation is just pure BS.
The old USSR was persona non grata for some 60 years. Then Gorbachev introduced the glasnost and perestrojka policies, opening the country to the west. The regime toppled in a scant few years, abetted directly by Gorbachev himself.
The more completely cut off you make russia the better for Putin. For the end game of what sanctions accomplish, look at North Korea.
Sanctions are always going to be a tradeoff between what hurts the power-holders the most as compared to what causes the least pain in the population. Particularly so when you consider that the iron curtain is back on and ten years from now every russian will “know” for “fact” that their suffering is all because of the west.
This road consolidates the power of a tyrant. It does not spur the population to act.
Re: Re: Re:4 To all of you who've never lived under a tyrant
This is not a good comparison (let alone not a good factoid)). The problem with N.K. is that they were never a democracy, they’be been strictly communistic since 1953, and something closely akin to it well before that time. Pay attention, that point will come into play in a moment.
As to cutting off Russia, they’ve never been democratic in the true sense, at least not since Stalin’s time. But do recall that 1989, the USSR crumbled, and it wasn’t due to a failing economy, as most would have it. It was due to the populace getting almighty tired of living next door to the people in a different country “having nice things”. That’s what took down the Berlin Wall, the disparity in living conditions being so gross as to cause the population to rise up against the leadership.
Flash forward to today. Do you really think that Russia’s people are going to give up what they’ve had for something like 30 years, and just go back to the way things were in post-WWII times?? No, my friends, they’re going to take just so much crap from the government, then they’re going to snap.
So why didn’t the people of N.K. do that? Easy. They never had a sampling of how good live could be, comparatively speaking. Remember, Kim started putting people in “re-education centers” (read: concentration camps) more than 60 years ago. That’s two generations of indoctrination of “that’s just the way things go”. But in accepting that, the average North Korean is not even close to living at what we call poverty level here in America. And that’s why some folks say that gun control works, because in N.K., there are no guns but in the hands of Kim’s chosen ones.
Back to Russia. That population does have guns, and a rich history of overthrowing governments that lean towards screwing said population. I’m not predicting just when Putin will get his comeuppance, but I am predicting that he won’t be retiring out of office peacefully.
tl;dr:
The Russian population will not go lightly back into that darkness from which they came out of, 30 years ago. They’ve had a taste of “gay Paree”, and they’re not gonna willingly be kept down on the farm. IOW, when your neck is under a tyrant’s boot heel, the answer is not “more speech”, it’s to get a pry bar and remove that boot heel. Such tools are usually best described as equally lethal weapons.
Addendum: It does look like many of you have forgotten the Internet’s Golden Rule: it routes around damage. Trust me, the splinternet will look (and is already starting to look like) nothing more than a giant sieve.
Re: Re: Re:5
There’s a woman who has gone back and forth from Ohio to Vietnam since the late 1960’s, Lady Borton. She said before the VCR was introduced into the coffee shops of “North” Vietnam, the survivors of our invasion/regime-change thought everybody on this planet counted rice; one-for-you, one-for-me.
See https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/culture-magazines/borton-lady
Re:
Cutting the populace off though just helps Putin. Outside information is the biggest threat to his control, and cutting off Internet access to the whole of Russia will do more than he ever could to insure the Russian people don’t get outside information. It won’t bother the oligarchs or the government one bit, they can afford to bypass the blocks or just plain have their own networks independent of the Internet they can use. Getting the populace to rise up and revolt is a hard sell, because the government controls the Red Army and the soldiers have even less outside information and are more indoctrinated than the general population so more willing to go along with orders.
The financial sanctions, though, those will have an effect. They hit the oligarchs right where it hurts: the pocketbook. Hurt them enough, and they’ll decide that Putin needs to step back and let someone else run things “due to concerns about his health” (ie. if he doesn’t he risks coming down with a sudden case of heavy-metal poisoning).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
More of the same, now Ukraine
7 years ago, the world we are in today was published.
It took those 7 years to achieve export quantities by fracking the US;
Fracking geological methane is not permitted in UK, Ireland, Romania, Denmark, South Africa, Czech Republic, France, Bulgaria, Germany and Victoria Australia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Quebec Canada.
Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York has voted to ban fracking.
Building the LNG export facilities to make the next move;
the US had ONE LNG export terminal, that was in Portland facing Asia in 2008.
Twelve new LNG terminals have been approved or are in the works, four new LNG projects in Maryland, Georgia and Louisiana became active before 2016.
“Government statistics forecast [in 2016] LNG exports in excess of 10 billion cubic feet per day.” (PCA)
Most US LNG ports are facing East.
Panama Canal website, 2018: “The boom in the industry in the United States has been a surprise. A PCA representative said the canal saw LNG traffic increase from almost none in 2015 to 6 million metric tons in 2017. This year, LNG cargoes are expected to rise to as much as 60 million metric tons, with about two-thirds coming from the United States.”
In 1983, IBM pushed FIVE Selectric typewriter, at-a-time, off on every business in America, building a war chest for their personal computer transition. The Seven Sisters ( now BP, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, and Royal Dutch Shell ) need a war chest as they “Go Green”
Let’s turn our ear back six or seven years, not hard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
UnCommon Core: The Causes and Consequences of the Ukraine Crisis
12,107,671 views, published Sep 25, 2015
……….Note February 22, 2014…………
John J. Mearsheimer, Professor in Political Science and Co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago.
Re:
How has fracking or LNG exports or typewriters got anything to do with the war in Ukraine?
Re: Re:
I’ve heard some discussion surrounding people who follow idiot conspiracy theories that things like COVID and Russian invasions were predicted by reports the were published a few years ago, and that this therefore means that (((globalists))) are publishing their plans for world domination. In fact, these are generally discussions about or training exercises surrounding events that are perfectly predictable to anyone paying attention to the real world, and they only fit a pattern if you deliberately exclude the things that don’t fit.
Judging by the mention of publishing and the random cherry picking of events that are unrelated to anything other than a superficial 7/8 year timescale, I’m going to guess that our friend here has bought into the easy paranoid fictions and because he’s found discussion of something that you’d have had to be an utter moron to ignore a few years ago, than must mean that there’s a (((conspiracy))) afoot, rather than just adults talking about things.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: How has fracking or LNG exports or typewriters got anything to do with the war in Ukraine?
Read to the bottom.
There, in daffodil blue, a You-Tube. Click the link, watch a learned person that has been around, spend an hour listening, WITH PICTURES
Ding ding.. recess. Just go play, never mind.
Re: Re: Re:
No, explain yourself. Don’t try to steer us towards some random YouTube channel, back up your assertion.
Re: Re: Re:
Don’t expect anyone here to click a random YouTube only because you tell them to. Either provide a context (and maybe a tl;dr summary) for the video or do the legwork of explaining your position yourself.
Re: Re: Re:2
In all fairness, they did give the video title:
“UnCommon Core: The Causes and Consequences of the Ukraine Crisis
12,107,671 views, published Sep 25, 2015
……….Note February 22, 2014…………
John J. Mearsheimer, Professor in Political Science and Co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago.”
The real problem is the rather disjointed and unlinked commentary leading up to it – i.e. communication failures. So… OGQuaker, you gotta realize you posted in a way that didn’t make sense and reads very similarly to the various dumbass trolls that haunt these comment threads, and the inclusion of the Youtube title in the way you did is rather obfuscated and easily passed over, given the rather nonsensical preceedings.
Re: Re: Re:3
“In all fairness, they did give the video title:”
…which is meaningless. The title doesn’t mean that’s what the video actually says, it provides no context as to how well the video is sources, if they cite those sources or if it’s just some rambling “believe me because I’m on video” nonsense.
If the video has any real value, it should be possible for the person linking to a video to instead link to the primary sources used and/or write a summary of what the video says.
If the rebuttal to any question is, as the moron above did, to demand that everyone in the discussion waste an hour of their life trying to watch the video in order to work out WTF he’s on about, he’s already lost the argument.
Re: Re: Re:4
“More of the same, now Ukraine” refers to another shooting war to control the market for petroleum, and i painted the US context in my long abbreviated lead up. The old youtube, laying out the dynamics of the February 22, 2022 invasion, might have been published last month, not in 2015. A person might watch it for themselves before judging.
I once spent 2-3 hours “assisting” two surgeons desperately trying to repair a soldiers remaining eye from exploding window glass. I have spent untold days holding the hands of men and women who’s minds have been damaged in war: war is not a 90 second investment in ones time:(
I foolishly expect a few readers to to spend as much time pursuing my argument as i spent researching and composing it.
Re: Re: Re:5
The problem with your original post is that you put forth disjointed events with little or no context connecting them, finishing off with a link to a youtube-video, ie there was no cogent argument put forth.
Regardless of the veracity of the video, you did it a disservice how you presented it.
In my mind there is no doubt that one of the reasons Russia invaded Ukraine is based on gas and oil, there has been a lot of friction between the countries in that regard.
Re: Re: Re:6
“The problem with your original post is that you put forth disjointed events with little or no context connecting them”
Well, he did put forward one data point, that of there being a roughly similar time period between reports and things that happened.
But, there’s so little else to connect them that it seems clear that they’re randomly selected and cherry-picked data points to adhere to a certain narrative.
I’ve noticed something among the Alex Jones types, where they pick reports or training exercises that have some resemblance to things that happened, and then start spouting about how the earlier reports were actually secret plans. It’s nonsense, and I’ll presume that our fool above is doing just that. No, I’m not going to wade through an hour long video just in case that’s wrong, it’s up to him to prove that himself, preferably with links to the primary sources used to make the video without the associated spin and commentary.
“In my mind there is no doubt that one of the reasons Russia invaded Ukraine is based on gas and oil”
There’s also very little doubt that anyone talking about the two countries with even the most cursory knowledge of current geopolitics would be saying that there’s a risk of Russia invading, especially after what happened with Crimea.
People predicting something that has a clear possibility of coming to pass does not translate to them making plans to cause it, no matter how similar the cherry picked time gaps seem to be once you remove all the things that don’t fit the pattern..
Re: Re: Re:7
If you only look at Crimea in isolation it’s a net-loss for Russia. But if we consider what the annexation of Crimea resulted in geographically we see that it allowed Russia to essentially “annex” the Sea of Azov too which happens to have large deposits of gas, condensates and oil (See https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3052/pdf/fs2011-3052.pdf).
The human brain is wired to recognize patterns and if someone is willing to ignore things and events that shows that the pattern is incidental, well, that’s just the good old confirmation bias rearing it’s ugly head.
My prediction is that Russia is going to wreck Ukraine as much as they can just because Putin don’t know how to back down, then come to an “accommodation” where they keep the areas related to natural resources, ie most of south-eastern Ukraine.
Re: Re: Re:8
“If you only look at Crimea in isolation it’s a net-loss for Russia”
Then, even without the oil and military uses it’s also a step in the direction of invading Ukraine – something that Putin basically stated he wanted to do for a long time since one of his ambitions is uniting the old USSR territories under Russia again – and it doesn’t take a psychic to understand that this means invading against the will of its people.
“The human brain is wired to recognize patterns”
Indeed. Which is why we need more than “here’s 3 otherwise completely unrelated things that share that one data point” and “here’s a hour long video of someone saying what I want to believe” if our friend here wants to be taken seriously.
As for the future of this conflict it’s unclear, but I’m also not going to be taking any correct prediction as proof of any grand plan by anyone except Putin.
Re: Re: Re:5
All you have given is a pile of dots, with no lines connecting them, and that is a reliable indicator of a conspiracy theorist at work.
Re: You got it exactly backwards
If you can’t sum up your argument in a few sentences, but instead rely on an HOUR LONG YOUTUBE to provide the truth or whatever, then you’ve already lost.
We can safely ignore your “evidence” because we know it is all gibberish and hot gish gallop.
Real scientific papers have abstracts and references. Fake argument youtubes have none of these.
Re: More of the same, now Ukraine
Testimony before the US Congress more than 30 years ago spoke of geologic methane reserves in the lower 48 US States that were large enough to run the World, the technology to drill deep enough (and push effluents +sand in, opening the field) were being developed, i.e. fracking; “On the other hand only 5% of wells drilled on the Gulf of Mexico shelf have penetrated the lower Miocene strata (below 15,000 fit or 4572 m), in which there is an estimated 10.5 Tcf [297 biUion m^] of deep-gas recoverable resources.” See 2004 https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttu-ir/bitstream/handle/2346/22537/31295019407583.pdf
“August 2012, Nord Stream AG applied to the Finnish and Estonian governments for route studies in their underwater exclusive economic zones for the third and fourth lines.” See http://www.kyivpost.com/content/russia-and-former-soviet-union/nord-stream-seeks-to-study-estonian-economic-zone-in-baltic-until-2015-312086.html
September 2014 “Despite challenges with US LNG exports, it is entirely possible that additional export capacity could get approved
and built, and that total US LNG exports could exceed the volumes already approved, or even potentially the 14.5 bcf/d (150 bcm) Russia currently sells to members of the European Union.” See https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/Modeling%20the%20Effect%20of%20Future%20US%20LNG%20Supply_American%20Gas%20to%20the%20Rescue%3F.pdf
March, 2017 “Gulf project in 4,500 Ft of water, then drilling through 15,000-20,000 feet of overburden.” See https://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2017/42048moore/ndx_moore.pdf The 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon casing failure was 18,360 ft below sea level, in approximately 5,100 ft of water.
May 2017; “Deep-water Gulf of Mexico. UT-GOM2-1 deep sea drilling project. Test of pressure coring technology in a gas hydrate reservoir. The effort is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and links UTIG, the Department of Geological Sciences at the Jackson School of Geosciences, and the UT Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering with Columbia University, Ohio State, the University of New Hampshire, the University of Oregon, the University of Washington, the USGS, and the BOEM.” See https://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/19190/article.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y
January 2019, “the US ambassador in Germany, Richard Grenell, sent letters to companies involved in the construction of Nord Stream 2 urging them to stop working on the project and threatening them with the possibility of sanctions.” See http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/richard-grenell-us-botschafter-schreibt-drohbriefe-an-deutsche-firmen-a-1247785.html “The US saw the pipeline as a geopolitical weapon in the hands of Russia” See https://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/nord-stream-2-pipeline/
March, 2021; “US Government publishes “warning” to NordStream 2 pipeline companies Lawmakers in the US have said they are “tracking” companies building the NordStream 2 pipeline, and will sanction those involved.” See https://www.offshore-technology.com/news/industry-news/nordstream-2-pipeline-companies-warning-us-government-russia/
July, 2021 “U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity has grown rapidly since the Lower 48 states first began exporting LNG in February 2016” See https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50598
February 22, 2022; BP’s [140 million pound] *Argos platform construction began in March 2018,The floating production unit, built for the $9 billion “Mad Dog 2” BP estimates the Mad Dog 2 production capacity will be 75 million cubic feet of NG a day. See https://www.upstreamonline.com/production/bp-brings-herschel-expansion-in-us-gulf-online-ahead-of-schedule/2-1-1172785
And on the February 22, 2014 “Orange Revolution” anniversary & the Russian “regime change” of February 22, 2022. See .gov on February 22, 2022: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51358
And yes, I’m a 73 year old un-educated pacifist, out to kill off “legitimate” discourse
So Russia is essentially transitioning to North Korea-esque methods of operation. If that doesn’t chill your bones, I’m not sure what will.
Pros/Cons
Cons:
* No freedom of speech
* Spreads propaganda
* thickens the fog of war
* violates human rights
* crushes dissent if an authoritarian regime
Pros:
* no more TikTok!
I’m not sure how clearly this is stated in the article or in the linked tweet, but the documents actually say the instructions only apply to certain official government websites, not literally every website ever.
The publicly stated position of the Russian government is, naturally, that there are “no plans” to disconnect the country from the Internet entirely; read that as you will.
Gnarr Slabdash (the N is silent)
That’s certainly happened zero times ever. It wasn’t the US attacking Iraq. It wasn’t the Russians in the Ukraine. It… oh you know there’s nowhere I’m going with this other than an endless list of bullshit.
Greet me as your liberator when I break through your front door, destroy your car, kill your dog, etc.
Asshats all around.
E
Re:
From what I’ve read, it did in fact happen in World War II, when there were various populations under Nazi oppression.
Soviet forces were greeted as liberators under those circumstances.
Of course, the main difference there is that the people greeting them as liberators had first been invaded and conquered by a different group, and thus were in fact being liberated. This does not apply in this situation.
Re: Re:
This also worked the other way around. Earlier, the Nazis were greeted as liberators when they drove the soviets out of the Baltics and Ukraine. At that time, the nazis were the heroes, the champions of justice.
Then the nazis proceeded to do nazi things, resulting in the liberated people deciding that maybe the soviets weren’t so bad after all.
Can't help thinking of the GPL angle
It’s hardly a secret that the Russian Federation uses Linux and a lot of GPled software to function. To do that successfully relies on free interchange between all affected parties – a bug in some essential piece of software needs both its quota of eyes and its quota of bug fixes.
And that’s just the necessary details of managing the software. Preventing others from accessing such necessary fixes contravenes the principles of the GPL.
So Putin closes down the wider connections, and woe and behold, some show-stopper Linux bug turns up. The Russian Federation software folk don’t get to hear about it. The outside world fixes it and the world goes on. And the Russian Federation grinds to a halt.
Of course, that is assuming that the Russians can actually splinter their Net off from the world Net. They tried that in the Soviet days, but … it didn’t work.
Re: GPL
I am not a lawyer. Fortunately the GPLv2 and higher were written so lay people can understand them. To wit:
The whole point of the GPL is that it cannot be weaponized. Russia has the legal right to use whatever GPL licensed software they like. That’s literally (you know, like written in) in the license.
You (whomever you are) can say “But hey, Russia is bad so they shouldn’t get to use GPL licensed stuff” but… no, they do.
You can say “Ha, we’ll fix bugs and Russia won’t get those fixes” but… no… they will.
A better “question” would be “Hey, if we can’t weaponize the GPL, what CAN we do to prevent Russia from… um… being Russia.” We’ve gotten so used to Russia not being Russia that this “new” question is really not so new. There was that thing we called “The Cold War” and all that. We’re back to that.
We have TWO problems.
1. Russia is doing what Russia has always done.
2. Our leaders refuse to take action because “Oh hey, we don’t want to upset that Russian Guy.”
If we don’t stand up to the schoolyard bully…Well… Hitler… Trump… Czechoslovakia… Putin… and today’s bunch of weak morons – Macron, BJ, JB, and OS.
Ehud
P.S. I said “Hitler”, so Godwin.
Re: Re:
That was never “the whole point”. The point, as stated in the preamble, is “to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program–to make sure it remains free software for all its users”.
“Weaponization” of the license wasn’t addressed as a concern till version 3, when the “reinstatement” clause was added to the “termination” section. Technically, there are large companies such as Linksys that have no permission to distribute Linux, but everyone just kind of ignores that—except Patrick McHardy who recently gained some infamy for trying to enforce it in court (and reached an out-of-court settlement with the Netfilter developers).
That’s complicated. What if sanctions prevent people from sending software to Russia? Of course they’d still find a way, but, according to section 12 of GPLv3 (or section 7 of GPLv2), if anything (explicitly including a court order) prevents someone from meeting their obligations to share the software, they can’t share it at all. Which means, by a strict reading, that those of us who’d given GPLed software to Russians with a promise to send source on request could no longer distribute the software to anyone.
I expect everyone will just kinda ignore this, too…
Re: Lo
It’s “lo and behold”, “lo” being an archaic form of “look”.
Re:
How do you suggest this would happen? Linux has lots of mirrors, none of which are blocking Russians as far as I know. Most allow anonymous access. And when the GPL was created, the software was being shipped on tapes more than computer networks. Free software gets around, even to places such as North Korea.
Problems with unpopular non-free software could be much more damaging to them. One can always find an unofficial software of Windows or Photoshop or Matlab somewhere, but I’ve not often seen e.g. industrial control software floating around.
Still, unless the world’s willing to cut Ukraine off, that’s an obvious way for Russia to get internet access. Worst case, send the army to some guy’s house, use their internet connection to update Linux before the ISP finds out.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
It’s interesting that Russia is blocking fascbook. Now if the US can do the same we will be making some real progress.
Re:
I don’t like Facebook and all, but the U.S. government shouldn’t be blocking access to it.
Re: Re:
Not all of Facebook and Twitter for that matter is bad. They are very useful in emergencies by allowing strangers with problems and solution to find each other and organize. Currently the Polish citizens are using it to organize places for Ukrainians flooding into their country to stay. Indeed Facebook and Twitter are allowing the citizens to deal with a problem that would overload government bureaucracies.
Re: Re:
Agreed. The only involvement government should have in Facebook is in the realm of legitimate (not performative) anti-trust, and in the realm of intelligent and nuanced privacy legislation.
But government can and should fuck right off in terms of dictating user access or moderation policies.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Yeah, no. The only good Facebook is a dead Facebook. Nothing of value would be lost.
Re: Re: Re:
Then let it die a natural death. We don’t need the U.S. government taking down any website for an arbitrary reason that also happens to violate the First Amendment.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Facebook is a tumor on the ass of society. The only way FB dies a natural death is by society dying alongside it, thus starving it of what it needs to grow. And like a tumor, FB has been doing a good job of murdering its host. Best to excise it while we can.
It’s also cute that you think that the Constitution still matters as people like Greg Abbott and Matt Gaetz sign off on legal opinions and bills meant to turn LGBTQ+ people into pariahs and eventually wipe them off the map entirely. Keep living in your bubble where you think countering speech with more speech and voting will solve all our problems, Stephen.
Re: Re: Re:3
I’m sure plenty of people said much the same thing of MySpace back when it ruled the Internet. Look at MySpace nowadays.
All things end. Facebook will face a day when it, too, becomes irrelevant. But until that day comes, your asking for the United States federal government to kill Facebook because you don’t like it will receive no sincere sympathy or support here.
I’m well aware that conservative lawmakers are pissing all over the Constitution. That doesn’t mean the rest of us have to, or should, piss on it with them. Nor does it mean we should stain it in the blood of our “enemies”.
Re: Re: Re:4
Facebook is much larger than MySpace ever was at its peak. No plucky startup is gonna rise to challenge FB and turn FB into the new MySpace. That’s not the reality that we live in.
Re: Re: Re:5
That isn’t, and shouldn’t be, reason enough on its own to demand the shutdown of Facebook by the federal government.
Re: Re: Re:6
Zuckerberg, Sandberg, Thiel (who’s no longer at FB, I know, he left after he was able to do the most damage) and the rest of the head honchos at FB have blood on their hands. Demolish FB, throw the fuckers in jail, and scatter the cancerous corporation’s ashes to the winds at a crossroads like you do with evil monsters.
Re: Re: Re:7
Who comes next, then—Twitter? And what of sites of a certain ideological bent, such as Breitbart and Infowars—do they get taken down next because their speech is horrendous? Then consider the possibility that such ideological takedowns will eventually be flipped to sites you like but the people in power don’t like. I mean, don’t you think conservatives would love to take down the Planned Parenthood website?
The government doesn’t deserve the power to take down websites it doesn’t like. Other than your personal issues with Facebook—and to be clear, I’m in agreement that Facebook sucks—you haven’t given me one good reason why the government should have that power…and how that power would ever be limited to Facebook alone.
Re: Re: Re:8
Jack Dorsey treated Trump and more with kids gloves and only banned him when he outlived his usefulness. I’d argue that Jack not banning Trump back when he tried running against Obama and spread constant bigoted lies about him using social media is one of the reasons we’re in this shit-show that we’re facing right now. The new CEO and his buddies seem to have treated other instigators such as Marjory Taylor Greene the same way. So yeah, I wouldn’t mind seeing Twitter get the axe.
Regarding Breitbart and InfoWars: Yes. I’d love to see them taken down as well. What’s next, are you going to ask me if I think that another website that foments hate and lies deserves to be wiped from existence? Because the answer will still be yes.
Ideological takedowns of far right websites while Democrats and/or progressives are in power would help a lot in minimizing harm. Harm reduction is a real thing. It could even help prevent far right politicians from staying in power or gaining more power than they already have.
As for a far-right government shutting down the Planned Parenthood website: Far-right state governments are already dismantling the ability for people to get abortions and other reproductive health services. The Supreme Court looks to be on the verge of nuking Roe v. Wade altogether. By the time the fascist theocrats get back in power at the Federal level, if we let them, there prolly won’t be a Constitutional right to abortions for Planned Parenthood to have a website for.
When fascist theocrats are doing everything they can to roll back the clock and make sure that straight white Christian men are the ones with the largest amounts of rights and freedoms, and they’re continually succeeding? I’m not gonna put my faith in the currently-existing systems and institutions that’ve guided how we’ve done things up to now to get that arc of history bending back towards justice.
We need radical changes in how we approach this shit. One of those changes should be drop-kicking websites that’ve done a shitton of damage to society & democracy off the face of the Internet. You can cling to the status-quo and misguided defenses of free speech in the face of people and organizations who want anybody that isn’t like them dead, but it ain’t worth shit anymore, Freehaven.
Re: Re: Re:9
I know what you want me to do: capitulate on my principles and take your view of things. You want me to believe as you do, think as you think, act as you would act. I must say, then, that this is another instance in which I disappoint you.
Belief in a principle carries some kind of cost. Mine costs me the right to advocate for a government takedown of websites I don’t like. Would I love to see Breitbart go down in flames? Yes! But letting the government do the burning goes a step too far for me.
Your attempt to intimidate and embarass me into sharing your worldview has failed. Repeat the attempt and…well, I’d wager you know the old saying about the definition of insanity.
Re: Re: Re:5
And if any site replaces Facebook, and grows a similar sized user base it will have the same issues, created by its users. It will also tend to buy out potential competitors simply because it has the money to do so.
The root cause cause of the Problems people see with Facebook are created by its users, including the amplification of fake news etc. Facebook’s algorithms are driven by its users, as it uses user feedback and clicks to decide what users want. Obviously Facebook want to maximize user engagement, but it is user behavior that decides how it does that.
Re: Re: Re:6
Facebook (among other social media corps) has hired psychologists to figure out how to make people spend more and more time on the site, foment engagement above all else. Zuckerberg and Thiel were pals with Trump when he was President, and it really showed.
But go off about how the only problem is the users, I guess.
Re: Re: Re:4
So now you’re in favor on the constitution, patents, copyrights, all of it? Even after pissing on the constitution on this very site for years and years?
Re: Re: Re:5
That I disagree with certain parts of the Constitution (or at least the laws they make possible) doesn’t mean I think the entire Constitution is bullshit. Try putting up a different strawman.
Re: Re: Re:6
I see. You’re only in favor of those parts of the constitution you agree with. Which one of these statements are more true: (1) you never actually read the constitution, (2) you are not now and never have been an American.
I’m a judge. I’m sworn to uphold the constitution, and protect it from idiots like you. My dad, a full bird colonel, swore the same oath.
My guess is that you have never upheld an oath in your life.
Re: Re: Re:7
The constitutions says that congress may make laws for copyright and patents, it does not however say that they must, So questioning the current laws is not going against the constitution, but lobbying congress to do what it can choose to so.
Re: Re: Re:7 Constitution
That’s kind of what those words mean. If you disagree with a part of the Constitution, that means you’re not in favor of it.
Re: Re: Re:7
You can be a drooling basement dweller for all I care. You claim to be a judge but your reasoning is that of the average internet troll – ie not particularly good.
There’s nothing more embarrassing to see someone wave around some unverifiable e-peen as way to prop up their bad faith arguments and strawmen – it’s the tell of someone who knows they are impotent and are desperate to prove to everyone else that they aren’t.
And if you against all odds are a judge, do you uphold the constitution explicitly as it is written and the laws that follows or do you uphold a contemporary interpretation of the constitution and the laws that follows from that?
Given your cocksure attitude this should be easy for you to answer.
Finally, the interesting thing about the constitution is that whether someone agrees with it wholly or not, it’s their right guaranteed in it to do just that – just like how it’s their right to criticize the government or laws they don’t agree with. It’s how jurisprudence evolves, because even judges sometimes criticize how laws and the constitution are applied or interpreted.
Now, kindly take your limp e-peen and fuck off.
Re: Re: Re:7
Yes, because that’s the way opinions work. Whether I agree with specific parts of the Constitution has no bearing on whether I respect said parts as the law of the land.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Come on, Stephen, tell the truth. Have you ever upheld any sort of oath? Can you honestly say that you “do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of an American citizen?”
Can any of you?
Or are you just all weak kneed globalist idiots spouting whatever crap you paid to promote?
Re: Re: Re:9
And what would those be, do everything up to and including sacrificing your life in obedience to the one party dictatorship?
Re: Re: Re:10
Well, if you remove “the one party dictatorship” and replace it with the “to preserve and protect the US Constitution”, and then change “in obedience” with “willingly”, I think that would comprise the proverbial American Citizen in both historical and present terms.
Re: Re: Re:11
Proverbial perhaps. I don’t think an actual citizen is generally expected to be willing to sacrifice themselves for the Constitution. That’s reserved for members of the military. For example, it isn’t a requirement for naturalization.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
Am I right in thinking either (1) you are a foreigner or (2) you received a foreign education? That’s not meant as a disparagement, it’s just a factual question. The reason I ask is that in the American education system, they usually teach American history, which is replete with examples of “proverbial” (and actual) American citizens. America is one large military, the whole country, and that has been true since its foundation. That’s how we made our place in the world. We fought for it, and won. All of us together.
American history, I’m guessing you never actually focused on that, that’s why you’re confused.
Re: Re: Re:13
What’s hilarious is that you think someone who lives outside of the United States can’t be educated—at all!—on the history and laws of the United States. How do you know for sure whether the poster you’re accusing of being a “foreigner” isn’t an American living abroad, ex-pat or otherwise? How do you know for sure whether they’re even living outside of the United States?
Trying to discredit an argument in that way is pathetic. It both displays a ridiculous amount of xenophobic right-wing nationalist thinking and makes you look like a chump who can’t attack an argument head-on because your own arguments are hopeless and hilariously outclassed.
Re: Re: Re:13
Neither.
Ummmm… no. I’m not enlisted in the military and never have been. Something like 4% of the US population is active duty military. So you’re off by approximately the entire population of the US.
Re: Re: Re:14
Also, if I’m not mistaken, isn’t the whole “well-regulated militia” part of the 2nd amendment meant to be there because the founding fathers didn’t actually want a standing military at the beginning? If so, that would suggest the “since its foundation” comment is slightly off.
Re: Re: Re:15
You’re not mistaken.
Re: Re: Re:12
Idunno, Stephen seems like he’d be willing to sacrifice himself if it keeps the First Amendment rights for our home-grown American Nazis to say that anybody that isn’t them should be wiped off the face of the Earth, even when their right to say that shit has led to many of the current fucked-up political situations that we see in the U.S. right now.
Re: Re: Re:11
And you have just defined what it takes to be a tool of the state, rather than a citizen of a state. A citizen should always watch over and question those in power, rather than just jump when they command it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Why would anyone feel the need to prove anything to a impotent and childish troll?
Re: Re: Re:9
Yes, yes, you think Jews are evil, we get it. Take your anti-Semitism elsewhere, Hamilton.
Re: Re: Re:9
Nice try, Hamilton. Funnily enough, you actually had the readerbase going there for a moment. I just think it’s funny as fuck you had to suck Russia’s cock purely because you thought it was your out to somehow catch Stephen T. Stone in a gotcha, but even that misguided hope has long since sailed with the ship that left with Shiva Ayyadurai’s lawsuit succeeding.
Re: Re: Re:8
Really? No bearing at all? Do you advocate piracy?
Re: Re: Re:9
Under certain circumstances, yes, I would advocate for copyright infringement. (For example: It is morally righteous to pirate content that is otherwise legally unavailable.) And yes, my opinion of certain parts of the Constitution has no bearing on whether I respect the Constitution as a legal document. For example: What I think of the Second Amendment would be irrelevant if I wanted to legally buy a gun.
Re: Re: Re:10
So your view of morality trumps the law that everyone else must follow.
Or alternatively, if you are indeed a law abiding American citizen, then you are prepared to pay the penalty for copyright infringement, which I seem to recall (from personal experience) is a fine of something like $250,000.
You are an American Citizen, right? And you are bound by American law, yes? And you are ready to pay the price, correct?
Oh wait, are you just a phony persona advocating phony positions on a phony web site?
Yeah, that sounds about right. Confucius once said “it is only a phony argument that will persuade a phony persona”.
Fresh out of those.
Re: Re: Re:11
Obeying an immoral law is immoral. Or do you think law trumps morality?
Re: Re: Re:12
When you define “morality” as “any stupid idea that comes to you”, then yes, law trumps your version of morality.
Re: Re: Re:13 Might wanna go look the word up in the OED.
I define morality as a decision between what acts are right and wrong based on one’s personal beliefs and experiences. For example: I believe the physical and psychological torture known as “conversion ‘therapy’ ” is morally heinous even if it the law doesn’t deem it illegal.
At one point in U.S. history, enslaving people was legal and freeing enslaved people was illegal. An act being lawful doesn’t necessarily make that act morally righteous; an act being unlawful doesn’t necessarily make that act morally heinous.
Re: Re: Re:13
How about when we define it the way it’s actually defined?
Re: Re: Re:11
I don’t respond to otherwording.
I am prepared to accept that a court would lay that penalty upon me. No way I’d ever be able to pay it in my lifetime, though. And that still doesn’t change my stance on copyright.
…says the dude who has claimed to be a judge, a best-selling author, a relative to a Founding Father, and numerous other things over the course of years trolling this site. (You think I don’t know your posting style by now, Hamilton?)
Thank your for explaining why your arguments don’t work on me.
Re: Re: Re:7
[Projects facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:4
I love how you continue to insist that fascist theocrats are “conservative lawmakers.” They’ve moved far past anything that resembles old school conservatism and want anybody that isn’t like them dead or locked up in camps.
Continuing to believe that playing fair will save us when the other side constantly cheats to gets its way, and holding close to woefully outdated First Amendment ideals that you seem to hold sacrosanct is utter naïveté at this point, Freehaven.
Re: Re: Re:5
Believing that the only solution lies in more cheating (or violence) is sociopathy. I hold no illusions that “playing fair” will win the day in the short term. But corrupting the processes of governance for the sake of racking up wins will have its own costs in the long term.
Re: Re: Re:6
The fascists on the right have already thoroughly corrupted and abused various processes of governance for the sake of racking up wins in the short term and the long term. Things are getting pretty fucking bad in red states for people who are not straight white male Christians with no end in sight.
What is it that you think that progressives and Democrats in these states should be doing in the face of increasingly-rigged systems and institutions that want them dead or locked up? Because voting in gerrymandered elections and protesting aren’t doing the job.
Shit is getting worse, there are fewer and fewer levers of governance that Dems & progressives in red states can pull and use, especially with the rigged Supreme Court… It feels like you’re just asking people to wait for some miracle to happen that never will.
Re: Re: Re:7
I’m not asking for a miracle, nor would I ask others to wait for one. God isn’t fixing this; only we, the people, can fix this.
And my sympathies lie with those who will be harmed by the actions of Republican lawmakers. Shit like that “investigate the parents of trans children” order in Texas is heinous; only God knows the kind of damage it will end up doing.
But as I said, I refuse to condone solutions that go against my principles. The furthest I will bend in that regard: Democrats should gerrymander states in the same partisan manner as Republicans until all states disallow partisan gerrymandering. And if and when I believe violence is necessary, I will say so, but I don’t believe we’ve reached that point yet.
I don’t have any solutions to offer that would make you happy. But since your preferred solutions are violence or “cheating even worse”, I’m happy to disappoint you.
Oh, and one more thing: Do I have to move out of the space in your head where I’ve been staying rent-free, or should I make myself more comfortable?
Re: ya gotta wonder
Nice. After 14 replies, someone decides to flag this comment in order to hide it. Good thing that this was made the First Word for the topic. Did the flagger(s) miss that little factoid, or did they think it would go away if they flagged it often enough?
I think that someone missed the class lecture where he would’ve learned that a bit of levity is usually a good thing.
Re: Re:
Promoting the idea of a government takedown of a website for no reason other than “it sucks” is not “levity”, no matter how much you want the Overton window moved on that matter.
Re: Re: Re: Sorry, but.....
I chose to see the humor value in there. That others might not think it so funny was not on my radar at that moment.
BTW, I’m having a hard time trying to figure out just when we started flagging people for having a different opinion that’s expressed in a non-troll manner. The obvious line that Facebook is worthless is, well…. obvious, but that doesn’t mean that AC had an alt-right moment, does it? (Alt-right moment – similar to a senior moment, but not as lucid.)
I dunno, maybe AC and I are on a wavelength than the rest of society, who knows.
Re: Re: Re:2
Again: Promoting the idea of a government takedown of a website for no reason other than “it sucks” is not “levity”. If you still can’t grasp why the comment was flagged, I’ll gladly repeat that sentence once more.
Re: Re: Re:3
Remember guys, Facebook just “sucks”. It’s not like its execs have routinely lied, cheated, and stolen for power and profit. Look back at Facebook’s “Friendly Fraud”. Look at how the execs have scuttled any research and initiatives from their internal teams that shows that the experience is shitty and divisive by design, and would ask them to actually do better by their users. Look at what happened in Myanmar. Look at how Mark Zuckerberg and Peter Thiel had an undisclosed dinner with Trump a few years ago. Look at how the company constantly does the bare minimum and only course-corrects when their bottom-line is at risk.
That’s just a website that “sucks”. It’s totally not a website that’s harmed democracy and society at large at all. All we need to do is wait for some magical thing to come along and out-innovate the multi-billion dollar corporation. We need to tell regulators and legislators to slow down and take their time; ask them to slow down to where basicaly nothing happens at all because the measures that could lead to us actually fixing shit could cause “unintended consequences”.
Re: Re: Re:4
And your ideal solution of “the government unilaterally shut it down with no regard for the consequences thereof”, that would be better?
I despise Facebook, for all the reasons you rattled off and more. But that doesn’t make me any more open to having the government regulate speech on the Internet. Your wishing I was won’t make it so, either—and frankly, your obsession with what and how I think is weird as fuck. I’m just some random schmuck on the Internet; why does what I think matter so much to you?
Re: Re: Re:5
Pot calling the kettle black. The general Techdirt obsession with a handful of prolific trolls who are also just random schmucks on the Internet, to the point where y’all can’t help but respond to them and constantly feed them, that isn’t weird? I’ve seen y’all try to goad them by name into responding when they don’t show up, as well.
Out_of_the_blue, John Smith, Prenda, and more, y’all can’t help but set up a feeding trough for them.
A few years ago, the New Years Message was to do something different. One of the commenters talked about how it would be awesome if people would stop feeding trolls. Thad pointed out to That One Guy that the thing that won the funniest comment of the year was a joke premised on how great it would be if a certain troll weren’t allowed to post here.
Y’all have your own folks who live in your heads rent free. Don’t throw stones when your house is made of glass.
Re: Re: Re:6
A fair point, but doing shit like bringing up my furry fandom name in an attempt to scare me into submission is a whole other level of “Internet argument” that looks less like trolling me and more like stalking me.
Even when I dig my heels in and go toe-to-toe with the likes of tp, out_of_the_blue/Brainy Smurf, Koby, and Hamilton, I leave it here at Techdirt. I don’t go looking for them elsewhere on the Internet. I don’t care who they are outside of Techdirt. When I go to a different site, a switch flips and I stop caring about their bullshit. You, on the other hand, are obsessed enough with me to look me up outside of Techdirt and use that info in an attempt to make me cower in fear of your knowledge.
You seem to take my positions, especially my disagreements with you, as a personal insult. You then keep going after me in ways that seem far more personal—that seem intended to metaphorically cut me deep and bleed me dry—than any of the shit I fling at the troll brigade. I’m left only to wonder why you care that fucking much about, of all people, a jackass like me.
Re: Re: Re:2
“I chose to see the humor value in there.”
Some people find trolling and such things funny, some don’t. If people had a different subjective reaction to the words than you did, that doesn’t make them wrong, especially on the internet, which is notoriously bad at communicating certain types of humour, sarcasm and so on.
“The obvious line that Facebook is worthless is, well…. obvious”
Obviously a matter of opinion. I use Facebook, and I rarely come across any political stuff at all, let alone the alt-right nonsense that seems to be the only thing some people ever look at. It’s a very worthwhile and useful tool for me to do all sorts of things that don’t have anything remotely related to American political manipulation.
If you’re going to start from an absolute statement as to the worth of something to everybody, it’s quite obvious that you’re not going to be dealing with things the way others do, even if your personal experience supports your absolutist claim.
Re: Re: Re:2
That’s been happening for years.
Re: Re: Re:2
That’s a loaded question out of left field, since that’s never happened anywhere here.
Re: Re: Re:3
Nonsense, it’s happened a lot.
Re: Re: Re:3
That’s a fucking lie and you know it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Disproven simply by scrolling up. Gods, you gaslighting trolls are pathetic.
Re: Re: Re:4 How to start a discussion on the wrong foot....
Holy Nunes’ Cow, I really didn’t mean to start a war here.
First up….
Stephen, I did, and still do, think AC said it in a more-than-slightly sarcastic manner. But as PaulT points out, the internet is a miserable place to try to convey almost any sort of humor. I did apologize, sort of, and I’ll stand by that apology now, too. Different strokes, and all that.
Repeating your view that AC’s post was incendiary doesn’t help, I still choose to feel that he was funny, to a degree.
…..
PaulT,
Yes, it is difficult at times to convey a certain emotion such as off-beat humor. But that doesn’t automatically turn a poster into a troll of any sort (unless the poster is repetitive over time and somewhat obviously intentional). But as noted, we’ve agreed to disagree here, and I’m happy to leave things at that.
…….
Others,
I was speaking to flagging a poster for a post that I took to be funny. The larger majority of you took the post as trollish, and while I disagree, I certainly can’t argue with any strength that one/some/all of you are wrong. I’m in the minority, and unless that particular AC comes back in and defends my position, then I’m toast. Mea culpa.
…….
About Facebook: If the post were actually funny in your minds, then Facebook being called “worthless” would comport with that emotion. But I wonder, how many ‘troll finders’ among you saw that statement about Fb, and said to yourselves “Uh oh, troll here.” How I feel about Facebook doesn’t enter into the equation, I was merely amplifying AC’s comment.
But for the record, and not to continue this line of discussion any further, but I’m betting that some of you want to know, so I’ll tell you: I looked at Facebook early on, but I never inhaled. And wouldn’t you know it, I’m doing just fine in life, TYVM. Paul, here’s another point along the road where you and I disagree, but then, that’s how life works, isn’t it. 😉
……
Final words: I see that the post in question is still shown as the “First Word”. Interesting that no one has petitioned Mike to take it down. Or maybe that’s been done in the Inner Circle, I don’t know. But it remains for all to see, and to take as they may wish.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Russian POW
Moon of Alabama has pix that strongly suggest the Russian POW is in fact Ukrainian special forces:
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/03/disarming-ukraine-day-13-lies-do-not-win-wars.html
Re:
I don’t think that’s the same guy. Look at the details of the beards in the two photos.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Other (sorry but pro-Russian) sites are all saying the same thing: no beards in the Russian army unless you’re Chechen (Muslim).
Same eyebrows, bags under eyes, and beard could be dyed (or simply better groomed plus different lighting, my beard becomes less gray when combed out).
There is a pro-Russian site dedicated to debunking Western propaganda. I’ve doublechecked a few of them and was able to find earlier uses of the same picture. https://waronfakes.com/
Re: Re: Re:
“There is a pro-Russian site dedicated to debunking Western propaganda”
There is also a trend for people, especially on the far-right, to class any opposing factual information as “propaganda”, while spreading their own.
I’m not saying that this is happening in this case, and lord knows everyone does indulge in such things, but if you have an “anti-propaganda” source that’s explicitly taking sides, chances are you’re just consuming propaganda.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Hey Paul! I think I remember you live in the UK, right? I’m always interested in the opinions of you Brits, sometimes they are surprising insightful, and often ridiculous. You just never know. So here’s my question for you: Isn’t it great that America has so many guns in the hands of so many citizens? In Ukraine, the government had to give citizens guns. In America, no need! We have TONS of guns, and no Russian or Brit or anyone else is going to set foot here EVER without consequences, unless they ask nicely first. That’s GREAT, isn’t it? Do you feel great? I feel great. Or do you feel emasculated and helpless since you Brits prefer to be unarmed? Ever fired a fully-auto 50cal? I’ll bet not! Come to Texas, we’ll drink a beer together and I’ll teach you to shoot like a man!
Re: Re: Re:3
As an American: No. No, it is not.
They’re giving those guns to ordinary citizens for the purpose of defending their homeland from a violent invasion.
We have tons of guns, and we had mass-casualty shootings in our schools on a near-regular basis before the pandemic. We have tons of guns, and we have lots of people using them to end their own lives. We have tons of guns, and our culture is too enamored with violence to consider whether we, as a society, need as many guns as we have.
Having tons of guns, as you put it, doesn’t make this country great—not unless you sincerely want to argue that the Sandy Hook shooting was a “necessary loss” for the sake of protecting gun rights.
If you believe masculinity is wholly dependent on owning a gun—a tool of violence made for the sole purpose of killing living things with frightening efficiency—you have problems that insulting British people can’t and won’t fix.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Well, even if you are using a phony name, you just never know, maybe you will voice a real opinion. Since you touched on the subject of morality as justifying lawbreaking, I wonder if you have the same view of Ukraine and Russia as I do. Some part of me wants to fly to Ukraine and pick up a weapon, even if I can put only a single bullet into the ideas that Putin is promoting. Maybe I die standing up for what I believe in, a free society that chooses its own leadership. Maybe I give my life to oppose Putin’s idea, or at least risk doing so. What does your moral compass tell you? Does some part of you want to join me in a morally justified mission to kill in order to protect democracy?
Or does that just not come to your phony mind?
Re: Re: Re:5
I stand with Ukraine. That doesn’t mean I would pick up a gun, fly halfway around the world, and start shooting on the front lines. But if you want to do that, go right ahead—in fact, I insist that you do that. Like, right now.
Re: Re: Re:4 Guns
Switzerland has more guns than the US, as most males are part of the military reserve, and keep their weapons and ammunition at home so that they can mobilize quickly. What is different however is the attitude to gun ownership. In most of the rest of the world guns and ammunition are required to be stored in locked safes, and guns carried in bags or cases, unloaded if being transported. They are only loaded on the range or hunting grounds. They do have not bought into the Hollywood version of gun ownership, where carrying a loaded gun is useful self defense.
In the old west, often carrying a gun in town was banned, as guns and alcohol are a bad mix. Also having a loaded gun handy is more likely to result in a fatal escalation of an argument, rather than stopping a burglar.
To a large extent, the US problems with guns arise from largely mythical idea that it is useful self defense, and should be kept handy, rather than as a dangerous toll that should be handed with care. The right to own and bear arms as part of a militia has been distorted into a right to carry arms whenever a person so desires.
Re: Re: Re:3
” I think I remember you live in the UK, right?”
Not for over 15 years, but if you don’t have anything of value to address me with in terms of the words being said and you have to resort to whatever you imagine the stereotype you want to to fit represents, then you’ve lost the argument even if you were remembering correctly.
But, thanks for confirming that you’re one of the older idiots who’s already failed to attack strawman versions of me instead of a new moron, it helps everyone understand the low value of your presence.
“Isn’t it great that America has so many guns in the hands of so many citizens?”
Not really. They’re concentrated into the hands of a rather small number of your population and you seem to lack the maturity and training to use them effectively in situations that don’t require going to the mall compared to countries which have higher levels of ownership (in terms of households with them as opposed a few people obsessively hoarding them).
“no Russian or Brit or anyone else is going to set foot here EVER without consequences”
I’ve been there many times. The only time I’ve ever felt unsafe was when I was talking to an obsessive lunatic who felt he needed a gun on his hip to go to the bar. A shame you spend so much of your time shitting your pants in fear about what might happen if you didn’t have your bang toy with you.
“Or do you feel emasculated and helpless since you Brits prefer to be unarmed?”
No, most people don’t need a gun to feel like they have a penis, why is it necessary for you?
Bad news.
Information sure can be weaponized and we’ve seen plenty of the West using misinformation as well but once Putin goes North Korea he will be the one dictating what people receive. Add the poverty, hunger that the sanctions will inevitably cause and you have the exact same ingredients that fueled the nazi regime into power. The rest is history.
As a side note, we shouldn’t forget that the West largely ignored the nazi when they were useful at containing the communists. I’m looking at Ukraine.
We need deescalation. Now.
It's only Cogent, though
Cogent has a long and storied history of cutting off peers in relation to various disputes, moreso than any other provider I’m aware of. When I was last looking for a new ISP, TekSavvy (a Canadian ISP) was offering unlimited service only on the condition that all traffic be routed through Cogent, and I chose another ISP precisely because of this history.
It sucks for companies to be cutting off service for political reasons, but nobody “in the know” would be relying on Cogent as their only link. They got big because they were substantially cheaper than the competition, especially for high-speed links, not because they were reliable.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
“but he sure looks pretty genuine as he goes on for quite some time highlighting how the lack of information in Russia is what brainwashed many.“
I guess we just ignore all of the SS logos on army personnel and the swastikas. The very same ones that once publicly outed had Canada scrambling to disassociate itself with. You are being either gullible, disingenuous or an outright propagandist at this point Mike.