[conjecTech]

Top comment from an admin:

""" We decided to do this due to the heavy cyber component to this war and the chance of manipulated content. Even seemingly innocuous links could be hosted by someone that is less benign. We certainly recognize that this is a pretty far reaching decision but there are generally other ways for most people to share the type of content that is being described.

As to why this wasn't communicated, there is a lot of things going on right now and sometimes moving fast means missing steps along the way (like sharing with mods). We did not intend to hide this decision. """

So it has little to nothing to do with attempting to censor.

[asjldkfin]

This is the exact same response you'd get if it had everything to do with censorship.

[8note]

id expect that if it were about censorship, they wouldnt say anything, and any instance of removal would be noted as being from the spam filter.

The spam filter intentionally or not does a lot of censorship

[rrook]

This line of reasoning, presented without evidence, can be used to undermine virtually any statement; it doesn't contribute to discourse in any way.

[asjldkfin]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're talking about. But I think it's pretty basic common sense that nobody censoring information will explicitly admit to it.

[rrook]

This is the exact same response you'd get if it had everything to do with ~censorship~ attempting push back on anything that reduces a propaganda vector.

Do you see?

[asjldkfin]

The difference is that in Western society (assume you're Western), we've agreed that people should have the right to think for themselves and decided what is right and wrong- so it should be up to them to decided what is propaganda and what isn't.

[rrook]

I don't disagree with this. I'm saying that your original reply relies on nothing but insinuation.

[justinpowers]

Huh? It’s also the exact same response you’d get if it had nothing to do with censorship. Your comment offers nothing.

[justinpowers]

So this ^ deserves a downvote? Please tell me why.

[8note]

It's basically the same comment as the gp

[justinpowers]

I must be confused because I don’t see how. Isn’t it the exact opposite?

GP is essentially saying “that’s what you’d say if you were lying” and I’m responding with a silly, opposing example of “that’s what you’d say if you were telling the truth”. They are both meaningless statements. The second serves to point out the meaninglessness of the first.

Or I’m just going crazy.

[hombre_fatal]

They are saying someone might post information on an .ru link that they don't want people to see. Isn't that basic censorship?

That said, this is just par for the course of Reddit. Just like how every subreddit has arbitrary rules that discourage viewpoints the moderators don't want people to see whether that's Bitcoin Cash on r/bitcoin or getting scolded by a mod on r/vancouver when I said something bad about the DTES.

Banning .ru is about as effective towards the imagined cause as subreddits putting up yellow and blue banners.

[everybodyknows]

So now, those who attempt to analyze Putin's state of mind by close reading of his public pronouncements -- in full, from kremlin.ru -- need a different forum. We are collectively deciding by default that understanding the enemy is unnecessary, at least not necessary for us ordinary citizens. Necessary only for some elite, membership criteria for which proceed to tighten.

This is a betrayal of one of the core values that make a liberal, rules-based order worth fighting for.

[xdennis]

Yes. We need to limit access to Russian influence. It's a war.

[odessacubbage]

'even if it saves one life' has been exchanged for 'even if it prevents one lie'

this kind of inept safetyism is fundamentally incompatible with a free society.

[tasha0663]

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information."

Yes, it is censorship. The what, why, how, shoulds, and coulds of it are irrelevant to the fact that it is censorship.