Advice on accessing BBC News | Hacker News Reader

Advice on accessing BBC News

bbc.com

150 pointsngcc_hk109 comments

> If you find it difficult to get the two applications above from AppStore or Google Play Store, please send a blank email to get@psiphon3.com or gettor@torproject.org, respectively. You will then be sent an email with a direct and safe download link.

How safe is this? I don’t know much about email security. Can the ISP intercept and edit the email message?

Non-encrypted email in transit is a concern, but AFAIK most users should already be protected nowadays. (Google estimates [1] put it at around 9/10, tho probably not representative of Russia)

A bigger concern might be Russian-monitored email servers, especially given that around 70% of the market share is occupied by Russian providers [2], and email isn't considered personal data in Russia [3].

[1]: https://transparencyreport.google.com/safer-email?hl=en

[2]: https://help.returnpath.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001108411-C...

[3]: https://www.plesner.com/insights/articles/2016/01/data-local...

Update: as for transit, see adam-p's comment.

For the Psiphon mail responder, we configure Postfix with `smtp_tls_security_level=verify` and `smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt` (with three "may" domain exceptions, unfortunately). So, the email should be encrypted through the ISP.

Of course, if your ISP is also your email provider (get a new email provider), then your ISP will be able to see and modify your email.

We also sign our apps and provide detailed instructions for verifying the authenticity of them: https://psiphon.ca/en/faq.html#verify-psiphon-authentic (You can't get to that if you can't get to the internet, but it's hard to do much better. We can't email the instructions, since then the instructions could also be modified. But it's entirely possible for some users to be able to load a webpage but not download a 6MB binary.)

Psiphon usage from Russia is up almost 6x since the war started: https://psix.ca/d/nyi8gE6Zk/regional-overview?orgId=2&var-re...

Both sides calling a lack of freedom of press, guess it's only freedom when one sided narrative fits. With the internet it's possible to get around most walls

Ironically, this advice is illegal in the U.K. under the computer misuse act - circumventing measures intended to restrict access to information is a criminal offence, as is providing information on how do do so.

My sense is that this is incorrect.

I think the law would prohibit breaking into people's computers, not circumventing internet censorship.

By circumventing internet censorship you're accessing information that its owner wants you to be able to access. You're not breaking into their computer.

Unfortunately, no. Consider prosecutions of users in the U.K. for accessing TPB via a VPN - TPB didn’t prohibit access, the govt did - but using any computer to access any information on any other computer which you are not authorised to access for any reason is an offence.

Link? Can't find any evidence that people have been prosecuted in UK for using VPN for TPB.

Now your are mixing copyright problems with accessing public-data...not really honest of you.

And it was not the Goverment who went against the users but Atari, Codemasters, TopWare Interactive, Reality Pump, Techland and the "Ministy of Sound"...for COPYRIGHT violations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_the_United_Kin...

Can you please show me the law? Because that would mean that the U.K needs to close GCHQ and any other secret-service maybe even some police-work.

Many things the agencies do is either illegal or would be illegal for ordinary citizens.

Believe it or not, law enforcement and intelligence agencies are permitted to do things ordinary citizens aren’t, in the course of their work.

As to the relevant bit - section one, paragraph one, subsection a:

>> 1)A person is guilty of an offence if— >> (a)he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer [or to enable any such access to be secured] ;

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/section/1

That's not the whole thing. See also subsection b:

> (b)the access he intends to secure [F2, or to enable to be secured,] is unauthorised

If you're trying to access a news website it's pretty likely that your access is authorised.

Without subsection b, literally every use of a computer is computer misuse.

I knew you meant that law, and the whole law is about "hacking" INTO computer systems/networks to access private/not-authorized data, not circumvent blocking measurements for accessing public/authorized-by-the-owner-of-the-system data.

>Believe it or not, law enforcement and intelligence agencies are permitted to do things ordinary citizens aren’t

Believe it or not, that's just partially true.

"restrict access to information" means passwords, etc

True, but I'd say blocking network access os also a valid restriction by the owner.

And that's the key difference here - restricted by owner.

Does this work for accessing radio shows which are restricted to U.K. IPs?

What's with the random characters in the Tor URL? Are Tor URLs always like that?

www.bbcnewsd73hkzno2ini43t4gblxvycyac5aw4gnv7t2rccijh7745uqd.onion/

Yes, it's an encoded public key, identifying the service. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.onion#Format

even "bbcnews" is part of that key, probably brute-forced until that prefix was found.

It must've been brute-forced. According to this one old brute forcer I found [1] but have not thoroughly vetted, it would've been one CPU-day of effort on 2012-era hardware

[1] https://github.com/katmagic/Shallot

Adding onto this: I was able to use https://github.com/cathugger/mkp224o to generate my own v3 address with chosen 7-character prefix in just under 1 hour on my i7-8700k

I imagine an implementation that leverages a GPU could go much faster.

Do people feel we should try and get these blocked sites back up, in a simpler way to access than using TOR?

I'm always a bit perplexed when people hold up the BBC as an example of a respectable, unbiased news source - a lot of their stuff is ham-fisted, and some of it is flat-out propaganda.

I wouldn't say they are noticeably worse than other media staples - everything is biased - but they don't deserve to be on the pedestal they are put on.

Seriously? Nobody beyojd a few OAPs actually thinks the BBC is a font of perfect vision. It's simply a but less crassly propaganda ridden then most other sources, and more centrist (if you believe in the 1d political tribalism meme).

The anti BBC narrative is largely political posturing to discredit one if the few remaining sources that aren't bought by private individuals to further their personal objectives. It's an obvious business move to increase their traction and value proposition.

Within the UK the "anti-BBC narrative" as you call it is indeed political, but I don't think it's posturing or a business plot, at least at grassroots level. I think it's based on the perception that the BBC itself tends to have a political and geographical bias.

Most European public broadcasters have a deep political bias, so much so that many advocate for their privatization. Previously in Norway you at least had the option to not pay the mandatory subscription by claiming that you didn't own a TV, but then the leader of the party with the most voters who wanted it privatized, the Progress Party (FRP), made sure that it came on the tax bill instead...

Those people who advocate for privatisation just want to replace it with their own bullshit. You'll be amazed how few actually want unbiased reporting.

So that's why they should be forced to pay for biased reporting that they do not want in the first place? Tell you what, Norway has a proud tradition of honest biased reporting; the party press. It's been toned down now, but I'm not sure it's for the better. Used to be that if your read Aftenposten (The Evening Post), you would know that you read an outlet for the Conservative Party. Meanwhile, if you read Arbeiderbladet (The Worker's Paper), you know you got an outlet for the Labour Party. And that was a good thing! Because you got what you asked for, and if you wanted more view-points - and many did - they'd simply buy both! But nobody likes getting something they don't want, much less paying for it.

You want other people to be forced to pay for the content you consume.

OAP = Old Age Pensioner?

I never heard of that acronym before.

Correct. It's a common acronym in the UK.

The BBC actually used to be independent and held the government to account. That all changed with David Kelly.

It isnt bought by private individuals but if the rest of the media that is is bleating the same tune it will follow. The end result is the same.

Every time they step out of line the government threatens to cancel the TV license.

Theyre also lacking in sheer journalistic manpower these days. It almost doesnt matter how impartial they are if they mainly crib from twitter, reprint press releases and report on government edicts.

The license has been set to end in 2027 already.

The current agreement ends in 2027 and the current government has said they won't renew it. Whether they are still in power remains to be seen.

I'm getting sick and tired of baseless comments like this being the top comment.

I want to read about the real topic, additional information, different insights, ... a real discussion about the original article, link, project.

Too many discussions are getting hijacked and turned into irrelevant clickbait and a waste of time.

HN could maybe offer a workaround to this by allow the reddit-like three option sort, "top new controversial" (then also allow per account default sort setting?)

I vaguely remember HN pages are built statically though, so three versions would have to be built? That might have been many years ago and has changed.

If voting weight cannot be trusted anymore in the world we live in, then change the sort.

Email hn@ycombinator.com, then, and let them know what you think. They're the ones with the power to change it.

What was there to discuss about the original article? It was a series of very short instructions on how to access the BBC in English, Russian, and Ukrainian.

Maybe you can be the change you want to see in the world and start one yourself.

There are two BBCs. BBC News and BBC TV programmes.

BBC TV programmes (from fiction to documentaries) are among the best of in the world in terms of productions.

BBC News is incredibly biased pro-government. IMO, this all stems to the changes David Cameron did to its structure and funding, making it effectively averse to "upset" the government. They also have this view of "balance" that is best exemplified by inviting a flat-earther to a debate on Earth's geology to offer a alternate POV.

EDIT: Also, if anyone is not in the UK or following it, catch up on Nadine Dorries, the "culture" secretary of state. Her agenda is to discredit the BBC, bring "culture wars" to the public service debate (e.g. "Woke BBC") and threats of defunding.

> BBC News is incredibly biased pro-government.

If anything it's pro status-quo or pro establishment it has a bias towards liberal democratic values and the norms. As politics swings about, the BBC has a dampening effect which is valuable.

So if you look at the extreme of Johnson's incompetance, you will see the BBC scrutinising it quite heavily - but similarly with Corbyn in the past.

The fact that government culture secretary Nadine Doris is attacking the BBC puts into context your assertion that it is 'incredibly pro government'.

The BBC News department recognised the problems with 'false balance' several years ago and I think that it's got a lot better on that front. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/07/bbc-we-g...

I gave my opinion on Dorries' approach further down on the thread.

Interestingly, the heavy scrutiny only came after the govt's threat of "defunding" the BBC in 2021. It was never there for the 2019 election, for instance or the Brexit referendum.

Also, the Tory party never accused the BBC of political bias, but rather "wokeness", so this is just an attempt to shift to the public debate to "culture wars", rather than other issues, in my view.

I mean - you're wrong

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10373181/Tory-anger...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/over-70-mps-w...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1559812/BBC-bias-Brexit-To...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1527642/bbc-bias-cha...

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/watch-tory-mp-accuses-bb...

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/conserv...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8133800/tory-ministers-bbc-bia...

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-bias-open-letter-...

https://www.digitalspy.com/media/a339323/tory-mp-criticises-...

The incumbent government complains about "wokeness" and not political (party) bias.

Also, those are mostly examples of a hand-full of famously fringe hard-Brexit MPs, over almost 7 years now, that cry foul for anything. Even the 70 MPs open letter said:

"Some of the signatories of this letter shared many of the concerns about the economic impact of Brexit, but all are delighted to find forecasts of immediate economic harm were at best misplaced. So-called ‘despite Brexit’ reporting may be expected of a partisan press, but licence fee-payers have the right to expect better."

This is a vague as possible.

It’s really not “incredibly pro-government”. It’s anti-rapid change; pro-middle class; pro-a-comfortable-quality-of-life; anti “changing the system” whilst still “improving on the details”.

Some of its reporting feels pro-government because it’s telling the story of what the government is saying it’s doing. Watch any of the “just off the peak time” broadcasting and it’s very keen to hold politicians to account, to point out unfairness and hypocrisy, regardless of which party holds more power. It’s had gentle leans towards, and against various governments over the past 20 years, and not in sync with the party in power.

All of this is fairly centrist.

I agree the editorial line is not uniform. But realistically, how many people watch Politics live or Newsnight? Mostly politics buffs. The vast majority of the population watches peak time news (which is mostly repeating the governments line).

In addition to your points, the perspective is rather "metropolitan socially-liberal". I would disagree that they are anti rapid change on social issues.

> I would disagree that they are anti rapid change on social issues.

Eh, no. The BBC is institutionally anti LGBT, like much of the establishment in the UK.

As just one example, a few months ago they did a hit piece, to equate trans people with sexual offenders. Curiously, the loudest anti trans voice in the article was herself a sexual offender. However the BBC was okay with not disclosing that, and then platforming her.

Later, emboldened by the BBC piece, said anti trans activist wrote a manifesto—just like a neo Nazi or a school shooter does—calling for the elimination of trans people. No apology from the BBC, and they didn't even pull the piece.

It's so pro-government that the government feels the need to discredit it?

Interesting...

Yes, it's strange. Mind you that the several accusations of bias (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/18/bbc-trust-says...) are political and Nadine Dorries' angle is "wokeness", not political party bias.

So I'm assuming it's a way to shift public debate to the "culture war" topic, where people are more emotional, less rational, than say the economy, etc.

This is not just a Dorries thing, she is merely working from the script. I believe that focusing on culture war issues as a front for Tory vote-winning was becoming a key focus under Munira Mirza, and I only expect it to intensify in spite of her departure.

Even within BBC News, there is notably different content between the World Service and home stations.

They go out of their way to try and represent both sides of a coin, to a fault. If it’s clearly raining, and they have a guest on to talk about the rain, they will also have a guest on who will try and argue “oh these precipitation levels don’t constitute rain” etc. A bit contrived but you get the idea.

That's not the case at all. They may do that for some topics but not for all. At the moment coverage of Ukraine really is "war reporting" in the classic sense, i.e, there is control and a line to follow to make sure one side is pure white and the other side pure black.

In what other way could they possibly represent the war?

Some people buy into the narrative that NATO is partially to blame for the war because it allowed Ukraine to seek membership.

It seems like nonsense to me because Ukraine has not joined NATO nor is it close to doing so.

Another side would be to compare the war to other US wars of recent years. This has a bit more merit as the US has done similar invasions including bombing civilians with even more flimsy justifications without becoming an international pariah state like Russia is now. You won’t find the BBC making such comparison for sure. But two wrongs don’t make a right.

One country invaded another.

There is no other position to take.

If Putin didn't Putin then there would be no deaths. Ukraine were not planning on invading Russia.

Yes one country invaded the other and that invasion should rightly be condemned. That does not mean that one side is absolutely 'good' in everything and the other absolutely 'evil'.

A few days ago Ukrainian forces apparently shot dead an Israeli civilian at a road checkpoint because they though he was Chechen, for instance. It's been barely mentioned.

Then, sorry for bringing this up yet again, but "one country invaded another" equally applies to what the US have done many times, especially recently in Iraq (~100k-500k deaths). This does not absolve Russia but provides similar examples to show that the way global events and wars are reported depends as much on what's happening as it does on who's doing it because the bottom line is always geopolitical struggle, not 'good' and 'evil'.

You mean like this story that was on the front page of the BBC News website a couple of days ago and also featured on the 6pm and 10pm BBC 1 news https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-africa-60573719

> > A few days ago Ukrainian forces apparently shot dead an Israeli civilian at a road checkpoint

> https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-invasion-israeli-dj-kille...

> However, Mr Brodsky's family reportedly told Israel's Channel 12 news site that they blame the "dictator" Vladimir Putin for his death.

I saw it mentioned in few UK news outlets. And the family blame Putin, as they should. If Putin hadn't put everyone under this much stress to survive then there wouldn't be any question about this DJ surviving. An accident during a period of surviving what is approaching a genocide, with indiscriminate murder from a tyrant, will happen.

Yes, I saw that... Civilian summarily executed by Ukrainian forces (which is not an 'accident' and one may even call this a war crime, to use the technical term) and the emphasise is on "parents blame Putin".

I'll rest my case.

What case?

> the emphasise is on "parents blame Putin".

Definitely not the emphasis in the link I provided.

You appear to be making up your own narrative.

Except for viewers in Scotland.

Or when the Irish elected Sinn Féin MPs to parliament and the voices of the MPs were banned from the BBC.

That wasn't BBC specific - it was a law for all UK media

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%931994_British_broa...

Those Sinn Fein MPs also happened to occupy leadership positions in the IRA, a proscribed terrorist organisation responsible for assassinating several MPs, launching mortar attacks against Downing Street, blowing up a hotel the PM was staying in, and murdering numerous civilians in indiscriminate bombings.

I would recommend you search for "Military Reaction Force" - the terrorism started with the British Army.

Except for trans women in articles calling them rapists, which is interesting considering they had no problems interviewing a known cis porn actress who has raped multiple people on set.

The article was titled: "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women" [1], and it's a genuine phenomenon.

Note that it says "some" - there are indeed some men who want to be women pressuring actual women who are only attracted to women, to pursue sexual relationships with them. In effect, it's no different to lesbians being told variations of "I'll fuck you straight", and similar homophobic abuse, by other heterosexual men.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385

1) That has nothing to do with my point that no trans women were included in the article, disproving the claim that they care about presenting both sides

2) What do men have to do with this? Are you implying trans women are men?

1. This is demonstrably incorrect, please read the article. They interviewed Rose of Dawn and Debbie Hayton, both of whom identify as transwomen, and both of whom, being decent people, are appalled by the sort of sexual coercion that the article describes.

2. Yes: by definition, transwomen are men who want to be women to such an extent that they will attempt to masquerade as such in everyday life - adopting typically female names and attire, often also taking hormonal treatments to feminise their appearance, and sometimes even undergoing genital surgery.

Both left and right claim it is biased against them.

The arguments are more complicated than that. That response serves to shut down any criticism of the BBC, as in “oh no matter what they do, they’ll be criticised”

Even if the BBC is biased, it's still in the interest of both sides to claim it is biased against them.

One side may be accurately describing the problem, the other side protecting their territory.

Interesting! It’s the same here in Sweden with the public service TV channels.

I can think of a few occasions where they have reported on some less than truthful statements from government ministers without adding any commentary. This has certainly led to allegations of bias but do you have some examples of where their news output is “flat-out propaganda”?

> I wouldn't say they are noticeably worse than other media staples

My brain simplifies the double-negative to "I would say they are among the best media staples", which significantly changes the tone of your comment while (as far as I can tell) retaining the meaning. If you disagree with that simplification, though, I would suggest citing noticeably better sources of news that people can turn to.

You can't simplify a double negative like that, when there's more than 1 bit of information. "They are [not] noticeably worse than others" can mean any one of the following:

- They are worse, but not noticeable

- They are on par with others

- They are slightly better than others

- They are much better than others

- They are the best among others

Those all seem consistent with "among the best" to me. Otherwise you would have some outlets that are noticeably better than this one, which is precisely what is claimed to not be the case.

They are implicitly comparing media sources to non-"media staples", such as your gut or your dreams. There may be "general information sources" better than those.

Seems like Node.js isn't the only language where people notably introduce dependencies.

I find their domestic coverage to sometimes be problematic but their world service is in a league of its own.

But to each their own, I suppose.

They're probably still high on their status during WWII. With that said, I think there's nothing wrong in offering alternative viewpoints and news sources to peoples who are being blatantly censored. I think more providers should offer this service.

More neutral than e.g. German state media but still less neutral than AlJazeera (when it comes to non ME matters) IMO

"less neutral than AlJazeera (when it comes to non ME matters)"

Good thing you made that exception...

There is a lot of history with the BBC for Europeans. Their foreign language service in WW2 is the stuff of legends.

Interestingly, they also work for accessing RT and Sputnik from the EU that are banning them.

From my location in Sweden, sputniknews.com is currently available but www.rt.com is not (error 403). Probably sputnik will go away as well, as the EU ban on these outlets is "expected to cover all means of distribution or transmission, including internet video sharing platforms and applications" https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/28/eu-rt-ban-extends-online/

This seems like a boneheaded move. What credibility will the EU have in criticizing media censorship in Russia when they engage in censorship themselves?

It’s to the point where RT is able to publish the equivalent of this BBC article.

https://www.rt.com/russia/551256-how-access-rt-censorship-by...

How are they able to return a http response without having the keys to the site? Has EU gotten a CA (digicert in this case) to issue keys for the domain, redirected DNS and setup some server to specifically return a 403? I'm guessing RT is smart enough to not use a western hosting provider and CDN.

As far as I can tell the 403 error is caused by their DDoS protection thinking you are a bot. Refreshing the page at a later time and not opening too many tabs at once seems to help.

I think russia itself probably blocked www.rt.com and russian.rt.com for non russian IP's so you can publicize two different versions, because de.rt.com works just fine ;)

Yeah I really do not understand that! Very strange move

Neither of these websites are banned in the EU. The servers are not very responsive at the moment though. Probably someone is DDOS'ing them.

No, that's false. I can access rt.com from Europe normally after a "checking your browser" screen. Using the Tor browser however, rt.com blocks access after said screen.

In Belgium it is very much unreachable unless you change your DNS server. It shows the big STOP page that is otherwise used for e.g. The Pirate Bay.

Broadcasting them in EU is banned.

But accessing them on the internet is not. Or in which EU country it has been blocked?

(I'm in EU but have not tried. Not interested in their content even for curiosity. I can read in our media what they say: There is no war. Ukraine is no nation, but Russians suppressed by nazis that ask to be liberated. In Russian media other standpoints are not mentioned at all.)

Edit: I have no good feeling about banning them. But I understand the Baltic countries: They have a substantial Russian-speaking community that consumes only Russian state media.

> Not interested in their content even for curiosity. I can read in our media what they say

If you're not interested in looking even for curiosity, how would you know whether your media is representing them accurately?

Do you think it would be reasonable for people in Russia to say they're not interested in looking at the BBC, even for curiosity, because they can read all about what the BBC are saying in Russian media?

I am not completely happy with Western media. They don't address the fact that stopping cars in Europe would be the hardest sanction to Russia because Russian energy exports have built a strong Russian military and continue to maintain it. Still energy is excluded from sanctions.

There are other wars were EU and NATO don't give a good picture. 1000s of people drowng in the Mediterranean.

But still I have a basic trust and know that outright lies are much less common in Western media than in Russian ones. If you don't count reports how Trump's victory was stolen. But the US is dangerously close from leaving Western democracy standards. Not the media, but 48% or so of the voters.

> I can read in our media what they say.

Actually, no matter who it is, you can't and hope to get a proper sense of it. Try it sometime. Luck anyone controversial, especially if your really dislike them. Read an account of s sketch they gave in "your media" whatever that is for you. Then read the original transcript.

I tried this with Assange more than a decade ago. I had the idea he was a bedrock lunatic crazy reading the accounts. Then i read transcripts it watched video if him and decided well be may be wrong about everything but that impression about what he was was just very wrong. Cherry picked, edited, context missing to make him seem as repulsive as they possibly could in every dimension.

Always form your own view and don't let it be handed to you fully formed. Go for the source documents whenever you can /especially/ when everyone is angry and upset. You're unlikely to change 180 at all. You are likely to have a deeper understanding of nuance and who is taking advantage of the situation for their own ends and why.

This advice is the same for American media if you don't live in the US, or middle eastern, or African it Asian.

At the minimum it should take you no more than 10 minutes to confirm RT is exactly what you think it is and that is worthwhile in itself.

Your attitude is a little bit perplexing to me. You have so much faith in your media that you trust them to accurately summarise what other media says?

Though thinking further I kind of get where you are coming from - there's English language media from a certain country that's so bad at propaganda I cringe just reading the headline. Guess I'm not as open minded as I thought I was.

> You have so much faith in your media that you trust them to accurately summarise what other media says?

Yes, I trust them in that respect. I do disagree with quite many positions of Western society and their media. But I do trust them that they correctly summarize what Russian report about the war, which they are not allowed to call a war.

As a foreigner who speaks Finnish I am aware of the weird myths that can be spread by foreign media who don't speak the language. If you search HN submissions for Finland/Finnish you will find some of those, many of those I would see much more nuanced.

But I do trust that official Russia lying about the war is a fact.

They look exactly the same as CNN except CNN is being forced to call it the "Ukraine war". E.g. in your example, RT toes the line to this "it's not a war" mandate by saying:

   Moscow maintains its military offensive in Ukraine is a “special operation” aimed at the [...]

Quotes included, they're not saying it's Fact but that Moscow claims it is. Here is another one:

   Russia *attacked Ukraine* last week, *arguing that it was defending the DPR* and the neighboring Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR), which broke away from Ukraine shortly after the 2014 coup in Kiev. *Moscow also said* it was seeking the “demilitarization and denazification” of the country.

   Meanwhile, Ukraine said the attack was entirely unprovoked and has appealed to the international community for help.

Honestly, comparing the two front-pages of CNN and RT, I am positively shocked. Most of CNN's articles are skewed to portray Russia in a bad light, and the RT one seems to be a big list of sanctions and retaliations by the West against Russia. We need to see both.

> In Russian media other standpoints are not mentioned at all.

How would you know?

Easy: The law they're passing where if you call the war in Ukraine a war, it's 15 years in jail, and several of the last independent news organizations shutting down, as well as that they've publicly stated they have started to block or degrade several platforms - e.g. Twitter, Facebook?

Well Cogent changed their statement and said that the reason they terminated their relationship with Russia is because of EU Regulation 2022/350 which is obviously b/s since they already started the termination before that [1].

This is a whole new level to banning Iranian and Lybian TV broadcasts by Ofcom by the UK. Very irresponsible and completely ignorant of all the slippery slopes and blowback that can happen. At least ICANN and the EFF is run by cooler heads.

But maybe you should check indian news which reported that Russia promised them buses to extract indian students[2].

[1] https://www.newspostalk.com/internet-service-provider-cogent...

[2] https://theprint.in/world/130-russian-buses-ready-to-evacuat...

In that case they are illegal. https://yanmaani.github.io/does-council-regulation-eu-2022/3...

Those sites aren't banned in the EU, this is pure misinformation.

It's funny that the EU needs censoring to "protect" the public from censored media...that smells really bad to me TBH.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com