[ehsankia]

Being blocked from sharing Russian-owned content is absolutely nothing like being cut off from the internet or information. At best it's limiting the spread of Russian-owned content.

I'm not sure why HN comments are so quick to make these extreme fear-mongering comparisons. Just yesterday I saw a top comment comparing Youtube removing a video to Chinese censorship...

[Hoasi]

Information wants to be free.

If free speech is paramount to democracy, we shouldn't discriminate. Most people understand there is an information war at play. Most people know that information is either propaganda or carries an agenda. If you cut one opponent's voice, then it's not balanced. Why shouldn't we defend the right for Russian media to promote their narrative? Besides, legitimate, unrelated stories from one perspective also end up ignored.

Censoring Russian media only further isolates Russia, which is counterproductive. That also further separates the world from Russia and understanding regular Russian people.

Last, there is the argument that understanding the Russian state is also critical at times like these. You can also read intent between the lines. Understanding the current opinion of those in power in that part of the world is of the essence.

[ehsankia]

Again, I see sites like reddit and Youtube as megaphones. Not being on them doesn't stop your freedom to speech. Information was is also asymmetric, it takes a fraction the effort and time to spread lies and propaganda, than it takes to fact check and correct it. So especially when the people spreading lies have a lot to gain (many are making a ton of money spreading lies that get clicks), I absolutely don't believe such voice should be given a "platform". They are perfectly free to spread their own speech by themselves, but they are not entitled to free amplification and spread from Youtube or Twitter.

[8note]

Democracy discriminates based on citizenship, so discriminating free speech based on citizenship makes a clear match.

[TMWNN]

>Being blocked from sharing Russian-owned content is absolutely nothing like being cut off from the internet or information. At best it's limiting the spread of Russian-owned content.

I am reading Clark's Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia (<https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002RI9PMM/>). Right after hearing about YouTube shutting down Russian state media channels, I was surprised to learn in the book of the extent of the freedom of the press in late 18th-century Prussia. A British visitor wrote that people were as free to speak as back home, citing a work that was very critical of the king in the context of Poland. During the Napoleonic wars, despite the existential threat to Prussia from France, at least four newspapers that celebrated Revolutionary France as the next step in human freedom were allowed to publish.

It's always preferable to counter propaganda with free speech. Even liars deserve the opportunity to speak. This is especially true when there is no formally declared war between the US and Russia.

[ehsankia]

> It's always preferable to counter propaganda with free speech

Except the past few years have shown that not only does not work in practice, it can actually lead to people dying and democracy breaking.

The reality is that a lie takes a fraction of the effort than it takes to counter said lie. People can post dozens of blatant lie about vaccines and COVID on youtube in the time it takes people to fact check and counter a single one. The information war is asymmetric, especially when people can get rich from spreading lies which get clicks and attention.

[remram]

I am mostly criticizing the move from Cogent, triggered by an EU directive. Reddit's is not that impactful, but it does appear to go in the same direction.

[unicornporn]

Exactly.

If every Russian can see what an inconvenience it is to have Putin as a leader the hope is that they will be more inclined to do everything in their power to have him replaced. Some will of course just blame "west", but there will also be those who will come to question power.

[OrlandoHakim]

Or, as happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, these actions could further radicalize an entire population.

I think it is safe to assume that if the west applies broad and indiscriminate sanctions that devastate the lives of everyday Russians, many/most are more likely to blame the west who directly imposed the sanctions rather than their own government who will very likely use propaganda to convince them to hate their western oppressors.

It is similar, in my opinion, to the broader Islamic radicalization that occurred after 9/11 when the US employed extraordinary rendition and enhanced interrogation techniques rather indiscriminately on both known terrorists and suspects captured without charge or due process/fair-trial.

Have you considered the risk that these actions could strengthen Putin’s grip on power and provide justification to the Russian people to escalate conflict further?

I gleaned this hypothesis From a recent Joe Rohan Podcast episode with Maajid Awaz, a former Islamic radical, who turned away from radical Islam and helped educate western leaders how to de-radicalize extremists after 9/11. [0]

[0] https://open.spotify.com/episode/1ugbn7cuab3mNgKbo81ajM?si=N...

[root_axis]

It certainly applies political pressure with respect to the current war, but it seems absurd to suggest that Russian citizens will replace Putin because of inconveniences on the internet.

[unicornporn]

It's not just "the internet" (and I think you get that). The point is that these inconveniences penetrate every aspect of your daily life.

[Terry_Roll]

Putin is just another US led Egyptian uprising.

I wonder if this (\u202E) would work for Russians, anyone tried? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30351968