Cyberattack in Germany Shuts Down Official Sites
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
<sarcasm> Because nothing says "valid political concerns", like a cyber attack on a foreign government. </sarcasm>
In a (real) democracy that's usually much harder to do, since there are many more decision makers who have to act on something, and even if there are a few emotional ones, the rest can keep cool heads and restrict them and make decisions for the long term future of the country.
Or from a more Machiavellian perspective, they know their position is ultimately a temp job. Obama will be gone soon, but Putin will stay. Obama has no incentive to build up some massive cult of personality like dictators do. Its unneeded. Dictators, on the other hand, rule by the fist and part of that fist is building some asinine strongman personality for the borscht eaters who buy into that crap.
Whatever makes you think most of them give a sh*t about "the long term future of the country"?
Hitler, strangely enough, actually did ... just very very poorly.... That's actually something he had in common with what I might call some of the "first generation revolutionary dictators", like Lenin (New Economic Policy) and Mao (where country != the people, who he believed to be very expendable in part because there were so many). But the 2nd generation, such as Stalin, or those who didn't actually do the revolution thing, like Ceaușescu ... I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.
From personal experience: I've talked to people I know from Russia, who are supportive of the current regime. What either ends the conversation or gets misdirected in nanoseconds is the question "What's in it for you?" when discussing the gov't decisions. For example, even without the sanctions, the Crimea annexation would cost the Russian taxpayer an insane amount, but as far as I could tell people supporting the decision tend to forget that fact.
Granted, these events have nothing to do with tech, but I'm amazed that nobody here is willing to show their support for freedom of speech and democracy.
I am sad that absolutely no one upvoted this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8856502
And who are you to make a point about "what hackers stand for"?
I think HN is trapped: On the one hand flagging is necessary to mitigate the constant influx of people who write poor comments which might scare people away, on the other hand it often chokes off interesting topics. What's left is a lot of boring and fleeting stuff, which eventually scares people away too. Fixing this situation is difficult, but maybe it would be a good start to stop downvoting contrary opinions, digressing and humorous comments, and to stop hastily judge other people. What's wrong for example with someone who is concerned that there is not enough awareness for free speech and democracy on HN? If that is his or her perception, why does it deserve a downvote?
"Nobody here is willing to show their support for freedom of speech and democracy" is a fallacy. If you know HN, you can see a lot of discussion of these topics, especially when they clash with technology or if technological aspects are touched.
Yes, what happened is horrible. But this does not mean that every site everywhere has to participate in the aftermath. There are many events every day that "should" have public awareness, but I feel we should also have the right and opportunity to stay in focused, filtered sub-communities. HN is about "hacker stuff" foremost, not politics, religion or current affairs.