I would really like to see GitHub ignoring such idiotic requests. As Russian citizen, I'd rather pay for VPN to ensure global freedom of speech, than see how our governments test boundaries of lawful and sensible censorship.
You using a VPN wont change russian laws.That's the issue.
I'm french and piratebay is on its way to be blocked at the ISP level here. Me getting a VPN will not change the fact that this shouldnt happen and that french people need to do something to change these insane laws.
Granted its tougher to go against russian politicians and lawmakers that french ones. But you're not getting more freedom of speech and information with a VPN,neither do I.
I've been in Russia numerous times , and frankly I have hard time understanding what's going on there today. I think Putin genuinely thinks that without him Russia is doomed or something,which is a mistake.Russia can only survive if its politicians have faith in Russia's institutions, It's not about this or that guy,or it's just another dictatorship.
The legal reasons behind the censorship are not important here, it all basically comes down to whether Github recognizes the local law of countries it serves content to, or not.
If I post suicide methods in English, would that be censored? If I post inflammatory information about Chinese or Indian politicians, would that censored?
When you start censoring, where do you draw the line? When you start allowing countries to extend their jurisdiction into 'cyberspace' how could you ever expect to not fall afoul of SOME law in SOME country. Do you only extend those concessions to large countries?
Ultimately it's github's decision to make in this case, but companies should have more than profit (or marketshare) in mind.
I find censorship repugnant. While I understand you have to comply with the laws of a country in which you are physically located, I think that should be the extent to which you accommodate things like this.
Their system is IP-based so censorship is customized depending on where you access Github from.
The Pirate Bay is entirely different from stealing intellectual property, and I'm disappointed to see these two things being lumped together here.
Also, I'd be careful throwing the word "censorship" around. What Roskomnadzor is doing here isn't terribly different from DMCA takedown notices or governments "censoring" documented child abuse.
As someone who has their intellectual property shared by The Pirate Bay I disagree.
Compare The Pirate Bay to YouTube. An argument can be made that YouTube is the biggest distributor of pirated content, though you'd never make YouTube responsible for that. YouTube is a platform and so is TPB. Nobody would ever suggest blocking YouTube as a whole just because people use the platform to share copyrighted material — yet quite a lot of people think doing the very same thing to TPB is completely reasonable. I don't get that.
I agree that the tool itself shouldn't be banned, but the idea of pushing for compromise (e.g. giving recognised authorities access to view users' details in cases where illegal material's being shared) doesn't seem unfair. This way the authorities have options other than banning the tools, legitimate users don't suffer, and offending users are identified; all's good - unless you're using the tool illegally; which is fine (or at least, a different debate).
Some studios have suggested that, and were campaigning for restrictions for Youtube. Hence YouTube's content filtering which recognizes and removes certain content automatically.
Roskomnadzor had a story with YouTube, had them blocked for several hours (mostly went unnoticed as IIRC they had banned only a single IPv4 address, and most ISPs hadn't even pulled the registry before the block was lifted), and had made them block a copy "Dumb Ways to Die" video in Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_Ways_to_Die#Censorship_in...
So, the fact is, somebody had not only suggested but actually proceeded with blocking YouTube as a whole.
That's wrong of course, hence it's completely different to stealing. Just becaue copyright infringement and stealing both have potential financial impact doesn't make them coterminous.
This is the very definition of censorship. The DMCA also fits the description.
The fact that you feel censorship is always bad but can also think of a few examples where you agree with censorship and are experiencing cognitive dissonance is your problem.
It certainly doesn't help anyone to engage in doublespeak where you define different words for censorship you agree with and censorship you don't agree with. Well, it helps in political discourse immensely but it doesn't help anyone here.
But I understand that to tackle the piracy problem is more practical to shut down torrent sites than to go after every single pirate.
The conclusion doesn't follow in any way from the premises.
Even if it doesn't "steal intellectual property" itself, why it's "wrong" to forbit access to it if "it's mostly used for that purpose"?
On the oft chance that some people also download legit stuff off of it? They can do that off of any number of sites that don't also feature tons of warez and pirated movies with direct download links.
A stance like "it's wrong because I believe intellectual property is wrong" is more consistent.
The Pirate Bay should be banned because people can use it to steal/share intellectual property.
Automobiles should be banned because people can use it to run over people.
Tor should be banned bacause people can use it share child pornography with it.
Scissors should be banned because people running with them can get seriously hurt.
People use TPB mainly to steal/share IP. People use cars mainly to get places efficiently, and occasionally by accident run people over.
Nobody sets out to get hurt while running with scissors (well, maybe some episode of Jackass). Nobody except the very rare psychopath sets out to run people over in their car. Almost everybody who goes to TPB is looking to steal/share IP.
And besides, we're not talking about weapons. We're talking about a website used to pirate content. I'm as logical as the next person here but people keep conflating these totally different issues on "logical" arguments.
A complete, world-wide ban on weapons wouldn't work because then you're leaving a window for some actor to make new weapons and exert that power. Shutting down torrent sites does not decrease societal stability, open anyone up to threats on their life, etc. Stop pretending guns and torrents are similar issues.
If cars were "mostly used for that purpose (running over people), then hell yeah, we should ban then.
And if "scissors" were mostly used by people running with them, then I guess we should ban them too.
I am a moral absolutist. I believe only action can have moral value (good or evil). This moral value is intrinsic and independent of context, intent or consequences. Killing for vengeance, killing in self defence and killing to save thousands of lives are all evil. Because killing is evil.
I also consider censoring, taking away and destroying something as bad. Everything in this world is unique, and was created either by natural means or by human hand. Even the most offensive and harmful thing should be considered as a product of this universe, and protected as such.
This way, I cannot approve of any decision that, in order to prevent/eliminate evil actions, either a) performs evil actions or b) censors, takes away or destroys something.
I say that TPB should not be banned or taken down. What should be addressed are the people who are using it to steal IP. What should be addressed are the people running over other people. What should be addressed are the people sharing child porn in Tor.
In the end, in my personal philosophy, the ends don't justify the means. Ever.
I know that in practical term, this is extremely naive. The world is painted in shades of gray. Sometimes we need to be practical when solving our problems. I'm just that hopefull bufoon that always tries to save the _Kobayashi Maru_ [1]
Why do you believe this?
I'm disappointed to see such manipulative propaganda language used here.
[/sarcasm]
Also the pirate bay just provides a hash ... hashing a file was still legal I think.
Besides, given how well the recent economic sanctions worked, which were created to target those closest to Putin in order to apply pressure where it matters most, I doubt a few tech companies are going to be able to change much. I admit I could be wrong here, however.
I, too, wish that Github wouldn't have caved, but I can easily understand hot it might not have been feasible for them.
GitHub: "Hey everyone, we've got something awesome."
Russia: "We don't want it."
Everyone else: "We'll take it."
Russia: "Hey, how come everyone's doing better than us."
Everyone else: "We used the free thing; it's awesome."
Russia: "дерьмо" - What sort of person looks up how to commit suicide on the internet?
- Will blocking content alter the outcome of someone's decision.
- Will blocking content benefit anyone in some other way?
However, I'd say GitHub are still right to allow countries' authorities to block content...
- If the content is beneficial to the country and they block it, they lose out.
- If the content is detrimental to the country and they block it, they do well.
Here the debated point becomes should a government say what content its people should be able to see, should a platform owner have the responsibility for content on their platform, should it be down to the content's creators, or to those choosing to access the content. To that, I suspect there isn't a good answer; or at least, I don't know.
You want "ой", "блин", "бляха-муха" or "блять".
Always interesting to see how cursing translates to other languages. Or other phrases for good/bad. 牛逼 is literally "cow cunt," but people use it to mean "great." That was very strange to me until I realized that "bad ass motherfucker" literally meant "an incestuous incompetent donkey."
Is learning how to swear properly in various languages a valid hobby? It seems like a fun one.
TL;DR, blocking torrent sites is nigh-on impossible, and if you go for more sweeping automated filtering you're in violation of net neutrality and freedom of speech. (Famously, TorrentFreak, a news site that doesn't offer any kind of file sharing services, regularly gets blocked)
I've heard news media report that there are elements in the Putin camp that are too nationalist. Putin has to show he's the one running the show or something like that. (I am just reporting what I read. I can't verify if this is accurate.)
What really? I'm really not following our politic, I had no idea.
He's ABSOLUTELY getting more freedom of speech using a VPN. It's not the amount of freedom he'd like (being able to pursue the activities without it), but it's better than nothing.
When it's partially allowed, the general public is complacent. When it's outright blocked, the people who don't know how to get around the block get frustrated and complain.
Russia already uses Yandex instead of google and pikabu instead of reddit. Why not репо or whatever instead of github? Buy local.
If you're a Russian citizen, first of all you should be the one fighting against censorship by educating others, by going to protests and so on. Especially since this is now happening all over the place.
I know how it feels like. I'm a Romanian and I felt powerless countless of times, especially in recent years when the local lefties have been on a power grabbing race, with countless of abuses and bad decisions, also leaving a hole in our budget due to electoral alms, but lo and behold, they've lost the presidential race by a brutal margin, even though they were the winners of all polls and they also control the media. What happened is that a large percentage of people that never voted showed up this time. People called their families, people talked on Facebook, people took it to the streets. Just like the protests from a year and a half ago that stopped a corrupted and damaging gold mining project. I'm telling you, it works - and btw, mass-media is in general corrupted, which is why the Internet is such a disruptive force.
I think it is good that there exist websites dedicated to free speech, where it is possible to post content disapproved of by governments.
I think it is also good that there exist politically neutral websites dedicated to technical work, relatively un-interfered with by censorship. (Not everyone has the means to set up VPN, and even those who do, would sometimes rather be getting on with their jobs instead of dealing with that.)
It strikes me as necessary and appropriate for these to be separate sites.