The banned story was hosted on a shady website and quickly flagged. The reason for that was (if I remember correctly) that the website was some kind of right wing outlet.
It would be difficult to find, outside of a full totalitarian regime, a country that doesn't exploit media, including news, advertising and pop culture, for manufacturing consent customized to monetize and motivate the populace to be compliant, profitable, useful consumers.
These are totally different things. In public relations the source is clearly identifiable. If the Kreml or White House gives a press conference, it's up to you whether to believe them or not. No problem with that, comrade!
How can this comment be the top one on the thread? The other side wasn't banned. It just wasn't upvoted. I would expect this comment on Reddit, not here.
HN doesn't ban stories friend.
Why don't you post a link?
Maybe Kaspersky is completely innocent, but the fact is they are based in a country which would have no problem in asking/coercing/outright forcing them to spy on other nations. That is a competitive disadvantage for a security company. If you think that's unfair then talk to Putin.
Not sure what new angle this Washington Post article brings that the current discussion wasn't flagged as a dupe. Maybe enough time has passed and de-duping is only done when both are on the front page?
Not only will the mods ban stories if they're offensive enough, but quite a lot of "social justice" stories get flagged into oblivion by the userbase. All sorts of things vanish from HN. Some of which is necessary.
It would be valuable to us newcomers to this issue if you could provide us with some links to these stories. Also I'd be interested in seeing that these got banned on HN.
"The U.S. National Security Agency has figured out how to hide spying software ... That long-sought and closely guarded ability was part of a cluster of spying programs discovered by Kaspersky Lab, the Moscow-based security software maker that has exposed a series of Western cyberespionage operations."
After a quick search I didn't find those stories (although I remember reading something about that, too, many months ago, and I also remember seeing Kaspersky blog posts deconstructing US-made malware like Stuxnet and whatnot), but I did find this interesting article, specifically these paragraphs are interesting:
> Officials tell CyberScoop they believe the FBI has engaged in deliberate media leaks and overblown classified congressional briefings to build the case around Kaspersky.
> The FBI has briefed private sector companies across several industries, urging them to cut ties with Kaspersky on security grounds
> Officials from the NSA, CIA and DIA have spent the last year privately criticizing what they perceive as the bureau’s escalatory strategy, which they say is often based on lackluster intelligence work.
> No evidence of a relationship between Kaspersky and the Kremlin has been made public, which has fueled a public debate about Washington’s tactics against the private company.
> “There is little doubt that the U.S. government’s handling of their Kaspersky claims will cause trouble for U.S. companies,” Jake Williams, a former NSA employee and founder of Rendition Infosec, told CyberScoop. “The data released so far against Kaspersky is weak and inconclusive and applies to many U.S. information security companies. Making claims without substance to back those claims will just lead to speculation that U.S. companies are involved in similar activities. Rebuking these claims is made difficult since the burden of ‘proof’ established by the U.S. is so low.”
The "two-sides" cargo cult is often a false equivocation: like teaching evolution and creationism. There are some obviously wrong opinions that aren't worth legimitizing. That is different than a reporter playing devil's advocate, finding adversarial opinions and asking tough questions. It is especially onerous when one "side" is one of these alt-right or mainstream rags that push talking points agenda instead of honest facts.
In any case, if you want to primarily protect against US government snooping, Kaspersky might be a better choice than a US anti-virus product. If you want to primarily protect against Russian government snooping, Kaspersky seems like a bad choice.
To me it seems perfectly reasonable to prohibit US government authorities from using Russian antivirus software that installs with highest privileges. I'm amazed they were allowed to do this in the first place.
>> This is retaliation for Kaspersky showing the middle finger to CIA backdoors, as was reported in multiple non-western news outlets over the past week.
Yes, comrade! They did the same to FSB backdoors, no?