Instagram submits to Russia censor's demands | Hacker News Reader

Instagram submits to Russia censor's demands

bbc.com

101 pointsuptown19 comments

In the end, you either play by their rules and get to play, or you don't, you get kicked out and don't get to play. They saw that happen with Google in China and saw native players take hold -even if they were initially inferior.

While it is submission (morally, politically, legally, etc.) it's the long game to play, otherwise you risk not having any future say --unless there is an internal revolt which upends things. But even then there is no assurance the new shire reeves will play nice with the alien enterprise.

You also have to play by the "US rules" which means no nudity or anything that would get you kicked out of the Apple App Store.

It is a self censorship which is just as bad if not worse.

It's perfectly reasonable for a platform to have its own rules as to what it considers appropriate content. There are no major platforms anywhere on earth that do not have their own subjective rules for content.

Most, for example, will not allow you to post all sorts of extreme, particularly gruesome violence & abuse content.

US rules do not mean no nudity. You can post nudity to Twitter for example, they have an approach to handle that. You can post nudity on Reddit, they have an approach to handle that. You can post nudity on Snapchat. Google images has truly immense amounts of nudity within it, that you can freely search if you care to; the same is true of Bing.

The US is not equal to Apple and vice versa. You have alternatives to the App Store. In China the App Store does not get to determine what's acceptable and not, it's the gov.

But back to the matter at hand, we're talking about the kerbing of political freedom. Sometimes you have to submit, in these cases, you don't have a choice. As Bond's villains are wont to say, "your only choice is to not play" but that gives the native players complete control over the market, as they will be happy to comply -and you only have your principles to point to --but that's an illusion because someone else is breaking them in your stead, so the cause is effectively broken. And given we don't reciprocate [the tactics], that means those players one day will get to compete against you in your own territory...

It's a prisoners' dilemma where you know what your "accomplice"/adversary will chose to do in advance.

US = corporations. Look at the war on fake news. This started from politics. Now the corporations are scrambling to implement it. It doesn't matter how many alternatives to App store US has, they will all implement it. And obviously, if a US court decides a video needs to be blocked, it will be blocked by all corporations (likely it will be blocked globally), without making the news. It's only news if it's Russia. You are suckered by PR if you believe FB or any other corporation has any other principles apart from making money.

And it's yet another clear illustration what the whole "Fake News" effort is about. It's not even about meddling in elections, it's making sure some rich sleazeballs prostitute pics don't make it to their wives, or the press. And of course, that when that does happen, "revenge" is exacted and traces of it get removed.

I think the point is that Google (Youtube) didn't delete the video while Facebook has complied with government's request. And it is not the first time Facebook is doing this - earlier they blocked a page for unapproved protest rally [1].

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/21/russian-f...

If you don't have any say now, why do you think you'd have a say in the future? Even if they did, why would a profitable company want to spend political capital, instead of just continuing to profit?

I think the long game is the opposite - make your principled stance. Get kicked out the country. Repeat with N more companies. Wait for population of the country to wonder why they don't get any cool stuff compared to the rest of the world. An angry population is way more likely to effect political change than a profitable company.

If the choice is "be immoral or GTFO", the moral choice is to GTFO. No excuses. Capitulating is just letting them have their cake and eat it.

Russian just get its own instagram stlye app. . see VK

Haha, our warlord king Kadyrov got kicked out of Instagram (he had millions of followers) and instantly launched his own clone (iOS https://itunes.apple.com/ru/app/mylistory/id1175917593?mt=8 and Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mylistory....)

My HN feed right this second:

    46. 	
	Instagram submits to Russia censor's demands (bbc.com)
	90 points by uptown 15 hours ago | flag | hide | 15 comments
    47. 	
	Federal Judge Says Embedding a Tweet Can Be Copyright Infringement (eff.org)

so yeah.

and especially hilarious considering this is a request to block social media posts which might have bearing on the election - when only a few months ago "social media" was balking about the use of social media by foreigners to interfere in domestic political affairs..

but I suppose 'forgone conclusion' and 'them bad us good', so obviously this isn't a one-way door

Unsurprising from Facebook.

While there are certainly some very sleazy rule-bending individuals involved in this, I'm curious. The claim is that the chick recorded private conversations and published them without getting any kind of permission, which surely looks like a violation of privacy. In the States, can you sue someone for recording and leaking private conversations? Can such leaked conversation be censored by the judge, like a gag order or something?

Apart from obvious business implications for FB, "privacy rights violation" claims have some basis. The whole story was more about sluts, than about "corruption" from the very beginning. Which is kinda funny to think about, when it leads to some serious consequences, like it did.

Privacy works with how your treatment differs from a "reasonable expectation" of a person in your position. For a high governnent official, generally accepted treatment is zero privacy for the person himself, unless a crime is committed (you don't get to break in to film them, but feel free to use a zoom lens). For their family stricter norms are usually held.

So there could not have been a reasonable expectation of privacy on the deck of a yacht in the middle of public space in the first place.

Secondly you get to spread pictures as long as you're (reasonably) in them.

It was ordered by court to block those photos\video while case is in progress. What is censor here?

Was it completely deleted or just restricted from view in Russia?

this is news only because Russia. videos get removed every minute in all countries for all kinds of reasons. why is this video any more special.

it’s also especially funny since the West now has started the war on fake news which is by definition censoring. this is done outside of any court cases. it is silent censoring, the best kind of censoring

All of your posts are yelling about Russia. Put down the vodka and get back to work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com