See linked https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-appeals-court-orde... : rapidly approaching the point where it's impossible to comply with both Russian and US law. They won't straight up ban Google, they'll drown it slowly in court rulings.

This is what national sovereignty looks like. Transnational Corporations is an anomaly.

It's also what a Balkanized web looks like. The dream of a cyberspace that gave people the freedom to inhabit a space independent of geography seems dead, as partisans will want to imprison their citizens behind a wall.

Independents still can live in the same space. Transnationals serving many gods are getting chopped up by geography because they seek money from each nation. Independents have to fight different battles.

Tiny individuals imagining a free web aren’t going to build their own international infrastructure.

If anything, this allows for multiple simpler websites to replace one monolith.

> The dream of a cyberspace that gave people the freedom to inhabit a space independent of geography

It was a dumb dream in the first place. I don't want to live in some souless homogenized world run by Zucc and co.

And I don't want to live in a world where the government gets to tell me what websites I can visit, so that I can be jailed inside of a bubble which is government approved media.

I don't have to visit Zucc's site, but I also I don't want to be told I can't and must stick to Pravda or GlobalTimes.

You don't want to read Pravda or GlobalTimes, and I'd rather "Weapons of Mass Destruction" New York Times and "Secret Microchips" Bloomberg stay in America. Perhaps you should stick with what's allowed in your own country instead of shoving your propaganda down everyone else's throats.

But if I don't want to read Pravda or GlobalTimes, I simply don't, if my fellow countrymen want to read them, they're perfectly fine to make that decision themselves. I don't want to prevent people from reading those sources.

On the other hand, YOU don't just want to not read the New York Times, you want to prevent everyone else in your country from doing so. It shows that 1) you don't trust your own countrymen with thinking for themselves and 2) you're an authoritarian.

I guess my question is, why are you using a VPN, or participating in a website that would be banned in China?

Media is a natural monopoly. without barriers you inevitably end up with the likes of Murdoch Media owning everything. You should know better than anyone else considering your employer owns everything from search to ads to videosharing in all the countries without protectionalism. I've had to resort to Yandex or Baidu when it comes to certain information clearly censored by your employer, and I know people in China and Russia do the same when their search engines censor information. VPNs aren't some secret technology only HackerNews elite can understand, everyone I know under 20 knows how to install one regardless of which country they live in. Without protectionalism there would only be Google. Everyone would be subject to the whims of the US government and people like you. I'm not an authoritarian, I'm simply someone who actually understands how information is controlled.

> But if I don't want to read Pravda or GlobalTimes, I simply don't,

And your employer Google makes sure to always keep their articles at the bottom of the search page and label them "state affiliated media", all while reporting searches back to Fort Meade. Whether or not foreign news is accessible doesn't matter if people are trained to froth at the mouth and yell propaganda every time they're presented with it. And that's the comparatively tame stuff. Try looking up videos published by ISIS on Google. You won't be able to find it. I'm sure it's purely a coincidence that the media that isn't liked by Google employees is exactly the media that gets censored first whenever you decide to "fight disinformation".

> I guess my question is, why are you using a VPN, or participating in a website that would be banned in China?

You work for Google right? Presumably you have been to the Bay Area? Did you know that nonwhite Americans exist too? The rest of us have to deal with whatever new fearmongering against whichever ethnicity/religion/race gets associated with the enemy du jour. Doesn't matter what I read if some asshole who just saw 20 coronavirus articles with pictures of Asian people and Asian businesses on their covers tries to smash my grandma's head in.

> you don't trust your own countrymen

Yeah I don't trust my countrymen because they fall for shit like Iraqi WMDs and then forget about it by the time it's disproven. Every time India/Russia/China/Japan gets mentioned on this forum or pretty much anywhere else it's a contest to see who can generalize and villify people from those countries and their "culture" the most. Why should newspapers and social media created by people like you have global hegemony? Why should the people of this forum, who clearly have contempt for Russia, control what information Russians see?

Your whole "free speech" argument is a charade given how much people on this forum and elsewhere cheered on the forced sale of TikTok. It's not about free speech it's about making sure your employer gets to control everyone's information no matter where they live on the planet. If tomorrow Yandex took over the North American search market and the US government bans them I won't hear a squeak from you.

Why is "national sovereignty" always about doing oppressive things which consolidate the power of the ruling class?

It's consistent if you don't have any content at all :).

Does it seem somewhat / pretty clear russia is going down the China route vis a vis the net? Not saying it's bad - just a parallel. A lot of US firms ended up setting up separate entities for china ops which might simplify their ability to give security keys etc to china).

The US does this kind of thing too but it's privatized. I'm not justifying the behavior. I abhor it regardless of who does it.

here's an example:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/24/senate-democrats-ask-youtube...

we just use different descriptions. "it's for safety." "these people must be excluded for the sake of inclusivity and tolerance." "harmful ideas have a chilling effect."

> Russia's communications watchdog on Monday gave Google (GOOGL.O) 24 hours to delete what it called prohibited content or be fined and said Moscow could eventually slow down the company's traffic in the country.

Versus

> Senate Democrats wrote a letter to YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, citing concern over fueling election misinformation. The senators asked Wojcicki to commit to removing videos that contain false election information, which the company has faced increasing backlash over in recent weeks.

You really see these as analogous situations?

Just different wording of the same kind of proces. How do you see them differently though?

It is obvious these processes are worded differently. One is phrased as a demand combined with a clear and credible threat. The other is phrased as a request.

The difference is so obvious that I have to assume you also see it. What point are you trying to make then? You believe that if YouTube did not comply congress would fine YouTube or slow down its traffic in the US?

they don't even need to make a threat, it didn't even have to pass legislation. A partisan congressional group made a request because it suited them and Google buckled like a belt.

in my opinion it's far worse, it's a flagrant display of extra governmental soft power the likes of which would not be symmetrical for the opposing party.

The former is coercive, and the other is not. Unless details are completely meaningless here, and we’re just making any equivalences we can come up with.

>and the other is not

Sort of... The feds usually drop hints before cracking down with a heavier hand, and I don't think this is that far removed from it. So there's a bit of an implicit threat.

Even if you disagree with that assessment, however, it's worth noting that the 1st amendment specifically bars congress from making law which would infringe on freedom of speech. So, IMO, it's a bit improper for them to write pseudo-official letters asking for censorship.

One has an axe hanging over your head, other - not so much.

It is still not so clear to which one is which. For a resident of a country a requests by its government is always more dangerous in the sense that they can enforce it easily and cause you personal problems for not complying. As for another country, the spelled out threat is a slower connection. It's hard to imagine Kremlin would ban Google completely as it would be another step back to the previous century - I doubt Russian people would approve it.

As Roosevelt said, speak softly and carry a big stick.

Russia is, in this case, not speaking softly.

governmental power in the US is always exercised through these quasi side-channels and the threat is indirect. "You can do what you want Susan, but..."

It's actually in many ways a more sinister exercise of power than Russia's "go and delete xy comrade" because it creates the illusion that private industry in the US is not subject to state supervision.

Just observe how Twitter say, ignored Trump's rule-breaking while in office and found mysterious extra rules, and the minute the power in Washington changes he's fired. All without one executive order.

Yes, I read both as: "Country asks a private company to delete content." How can you even argue that both are different?

Do you really see no significant difference between a regulatory agency threatening fines and interference with network traffic on 24 hours notice, and group of legislators sending and open letter to request content be removed?

You're right. The Senate Democrats request and Google's subsequent capitulation is a far more ominous and insidious display of soft power.

Didn't Germany also put some kind of 24 hour limit on removing banned content?

This isn't a fair comparison.

A state controlling information as a means of propaganda, and another state's elected officials calling for the removal of non-factual information which deteriorates the effective quality of the electoral process are not the same thing.

Obviously - it's all politicized on some level, no doubt.

But if someone puts up a fake video saying 'Clear evidence of election fraud' with 50M views, when the video doesn't actually have any evidence of electoral fraud ... well it's a civic problem.

One one had we have issues of state, which are probably the most complicated ... on the other, we have issues of basic civic principles particularly as it applies to the actual truth.

All of this boils down to the giant Elephant in the Room that nobody seems to want to talk about, which is that the Media has never been 'just about money'. Like Doctors, Lawyers/Judiciary, there has always been at least some degree of culture of integrity at least with respect to the facts. Big Journos don't talk about 'profit maximization' they talk about 'breaking the story'. Journalists don't idolize the CEO, they idolize Bernstein and Woodward.

Obviously, there's a spectrum here and every news organization does push for viewers in sneaky ways, they avoid upsetting major advertisers - but it's clear that the quality of 'truth' varies quite dramatically between organizations, and that it helps a lot to have those with 'better quality' near the top.

Russia has been moving in the direction of China for a long time, I suspect that will continue.

"Russia has been moving in the direction of China for a long time, I suspect that will continue."

I'm less worried (and less surprised) about that and more worried about the stifling of free speech and expression in the US, particularly the insidious way it's being carried out.

Pressuring social media companies seems to an interesting developing trend. India and Russia both took actions against social media companies in the past few days. Florida passed local laws protecting politicians. Over the past 6 months Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al proved themselves to be competent in monitoring and banning unwanted content. I will not be surprised that each country will create laws and pressure the tech companies to comply. After all, the veneer of ToS compliance is a thin match against local laws. If a government can justify their actions in the local courts, the only options the tech companies have would be to either comply or leave the country. Even Apple chose compliance with the local laws in China. See - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-ce...

This situation are really interested.

On one side, a lot of people chastise these actions because they seem unfair and oppressive. On the other hand, people applauded companies censoring the conservative movements on the USA during its last election.

As someone in an external 3td party country, its interesting to see te double standard some of the USA society applies to these type of issues.

Removing true information and removing false information are exactly the same, because all knowledge is relative and truth does not exist, only power?

It won't be too long until Russia deploys its great firewall

Use any search engine that fits in trunk of Lada

Thank you, I love Ladas they and of course Yugo were the cars of my childhood! ^^

Imagine... Cars that you can fix yourself~

s/can/have to weekly/g

You're being needlessly harsh. Most people agree that Lada is a noticeable improvement over a horse and buggy.

Eastern europe is still full of Ladas the same way some American towns are full of 1960s and 1970s muscle cars. It's well worth the money here.

It's not full of Lada's, not at least north east. You'd struggle to see one anywhere. People despise them even today.