Hacker News Reader

Don't get the downvotes either. This is a somewhat valid point. I feel like many people, even here on HN really like to paint the world black and white in this regard.

Everything bad we hear about Russia & China must undoubtedly be true, because it's reported by our press, and we have freedom of press, which means that our press never lies or has an agenda. At least when it comes to foreign affairs. So your Facebook feed must've undoubtedly told the unbiased truth about your country.

Is it sarcasm? A bit hard to get for me.

There's an old and very easy way to create a distorted image by selectively publishing the news: just ignore all the positive news and publish only negative news.

Many opposition channels and blogs in Russia exploit this technique. E.g. there're some anti-Russian blogs (quite many) that publish only vivid descriptions of the most cruel crimes that happened in Russia recently. When people read mostly these blogs they get an impression that everyday life in Russia is permeated by brutal crimes and there's no escape from villains if you step outside your apartment.

They're also quite popular among Russian immigrants living in Europe and USA (my guess is that because they're promoted in Google/Facebook/YouTube search results), and they always tell me in private conversations: "How can you live in such a brutal place where people are killed for no reason every day?"

They don't get that crime happens in every country every day, what is important is statistics: how effective is effort for fighting the crime, how big is percent of victims, etc (btw, also a rich field for statistics manipulation).

But these blogs do not publish fake news - they can publish only true facts. There's enough true facts you can use to create a distorted image if you ignore all the other information.

Yes, that was sarcasm, sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

They do and with the help of moderators.

Here's what I've been saying to my partner recently, "I hardly know what's going on up North of England, or even the other side of London (we live in London), but somehow what we hear about the other side of the world must be true". I find people who hold views whatever they hear in the media to be the absolute truth and that they are well informed because they read a lot of news to be extremely naive. This Mark Twain quote completely represents how I feel:

If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.

I do not know why Google blocks pro-russian sources, but I know why I'd blocked them, if I could. They are not "pro-russian", they are all "pro-Putin". Any "pro-russian" source that is not "pro-Putin" will become "anti-russian" in a short time, because of activity of other "pro-russian" sources. They just forcibly stick "anti-russian" label on such a source, and here we are. Putin do all he could, to draw an equality sign between "Russia" and "Putin". And it works. Now no media needs to do nothing, "anti-russian" label sicks to any "anti-Putin" media all by itself. I know this, because I'm russian, I'm anti-Putin, and I tried to find a "pro-russian" and "anti-putin" source. I tried and failed. There is not such thing.

When a media use any material to promote it's propaganda ideas, doesn't bother with truth, use any dirty trick to mock opponents, it should be blocked.

But if Google blocked such dirty media, then what is to remain? Only "anti-Putin" media, which is all marked as "anti-russian".

I repeat: I do not know, why Google blocked "pro-putin" media, maybe due to reasons I described above, maybe because of order from a masonic lodge or from USA government. But the result is the same: all that is not blocked is "anti-russian".

There's one clear sign that you can find on any Russian anti-Putin and/or pro-liberal blog or channel: that Russian people are lazy, stupid, alcoholics and drug addicts, that Russians never invented anything (all the technology at all times was stolen from Europe and USA), Russia never won any war (including WWII that was "won" exclusively by USA), etc.

They go even as far as to declare Russian language "stupid and barbaric and ugly" (Gasan Gusejnov).

Not touching any other reason for now, for me it's a clear sign that all opposition is rusophobic and/or paid by the CIA/MI-6.

Why would a sane person call his nation "stupid alcoholics using barbaric language"?..

> Russia never won any war (including WWII that was "won" exclusively by USA), etc.

Russia didn't take part in WW2. USSR did.

> There's one clear sign that you can find on any Russian anti-Putin and/or pro-liberal blog or channel[...]

> Why would a sane person call his nation "stupid alcoholics using barbaric language"?..

Oh, yeah. Lets label any anti-Putin person as insane.

What are you trying to do? Are you trying to get ban from `dang`, so you could then talk about bloody censorship on HN? "HackerNews is a branch of CIA/MI-6", isn't it?

You are making here general claims from specific cases. It's a logical fallacy. Moreover your claim about Gasan Gusejnov is taken out of context. He said: "кроме того убогого клоачного русского, на котором сейчас говорит и пишет эта страна", i.e. "apart from that sordid and cloacal Russian language in which this country speaks and writes now". It is clear that he didn't mean the Russian language as a whole but the form of Russian language used in oral and written public communication lately.

> one clear sign that you can find on any Russian anti-Putin and/or pro-liberal blog or channel: that Russian people are lazy, stupid, alcoholics and drug addicts

Wow i don’t know how it is in Russia; but that’s exactly the fake impression I’d work to cultivate if I was Putin or the state. If I had to guess, what you’re seeing is a false image designed to make you hate anything not explicitly pro Russia government. Your description follows with tactics used by clandestine groups in the US, like appearing has black activists but taken to absurd levels so as to either alienate other supporters or turn them into extremists.

It sounds like you’re being played.

> all opposition is rusophobic and/or paid by the CIA/MI-6

This is probably the most ridiculous statement I've read on HN. But unfortunately not surprising.

Interesting, your post is downvoted without any comments. Maybe it wouldn't harm to say what's wrong?

Well, my comment is against the against the grain (rusophobia is trendy in the contemporary world even among Russians). Also, it's a bit muddy. I said that government has nothing to do with censorship, but I contradict myself.

Although censorship in the US is some kind of internal struggle between parties that is hard to understand for an outsider like me, but promotion of rusophobia in social networks and YouTube is probably endorsed by US government. I doubt that ordinary engineers and managers at Facebook really care so much about Russia to boost rusophobic articles in the feed.

The US wasn't in Ukraine to promote democracy. Maybe it was a reaction to Crimea, perhaps they wanted to hinder the pipeline between Germany and Russia, maybe they just wanted influence in another eastern European state, but I am certainly not surprised the conflict is escalating. We are regressing to cold war thinking and while I think Putin is a despot, I see the actions of the US very critically.

Sad really, since we had a better political situation just 15 years ago.

US/Europe staged a coup in Ukraine before Crimea. Actually, it wasn't even the first coup staged by US in Ukraine.

True, and Crimea was a reaction to that. The EU or some member sates might have been involved here too, because EU association was the goal and it is convenient to blame everything on the US.

The pipeline might have been the reason all along for energy independence from Russia. I wouldn't know on whom to be angry if I were someone from Ukraine, but I would certainly be angry.

But people blaming Russian bots on Twitter can only be called low information voters in my opinion.

It would be more interesting if in general it was impossible to downvote (any comment) without providing a reason.

The government does have control over this. They could easily introduce a law which forbids platforms from censoring any legal content. They choose not to do this.

As others have pointed out to varying degrees, everything you highlighted happens at the discretion of the government. Doing nothing does not imply a lack of engagement it simply means that the government sees no reason to act.

Perhaps this gives a clue as to why: https://about.fb.com/news/2018/05/announcing-new-election-pa...

Facebook uses an Atlanticist thinktank as an honest broker to censor information.

Essentially the US replicated what the USSR had as state censorship but with private corporations and it is impacting international communication not only US. The best part is that some people think it is for the greater good. When you would like to talk about it you are getting downvoted.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Which NYT articles were blocked on Facebook?

At least an "questionably sourced article that made incriminating claims about Joe Biden and his son Hunter".

Which is quite of importance if they are true (It looks like that to be honest, but the involvement of family matters should not have happened). It is highly relevant to developments in Europe and the relationship to Russia.

It is silly that Trump was accused of what Biden is probably guilty of. That is a point where you loose me even if there are understandable objections to Trump. He didn't start shit like that at least.

That was the New York Post, not the Times.