Cutting off your enemy’s communications has always been important. Most authoritarian governments decide eventually that their biggest enemy, outside of wartime, is their own people

I imagine by definition cutting access makes them not good guys?

I can think of a few things I read on hn:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26023402 (India)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2879546 (San Francisco)

One distinction between the 2 cases is

1. In India they cut off all internet, even those provided by private players.

2. In SF, they cut off government installed repeaters. The private internet was accessible.

> I imagine by definition cutting access makes them not good guys?

Fair question, so how about either that they were the good guys, or that they would have been other than this one action?

He probably meant guys who call themselves good. Like preaching their exceptionalism while killing and otherwise fucking up truckloads of "they hate our freedoms" people.

No, that's not at all what I meant.

> In the entire history of mankind, has there ever been a case where the good guys

"Good guys"? What does this mean?

In history, over the long term, it typically means "whoever won".

if you're not sure it means you should carefully consider your ethics.

If you're so sure, then you should be able to provide recent examples and justification for their actions.

Everyone's ethics are their own. If you can't decide what is good and what is bad that's a personal failing. Relying on other people's sense of good and bad is also a failing. Thats why you need to consider your own ethics.

All right. Let's take that as a given truth for now that ethics are not universal, and are instead individual. Using your own ethics, I'd ask that you provide some recent examples as well as justification for those actions.

please be specific in addressing what I said to you. You're asking for examples of something I never spoke about.

We're literally in the middle of a culture war in which some good guys are trying to censor some bad guys on social media. Not that I neccessarily agree or disagree with that labeling.

being the "good guy" is subjective and history is written by the winners. plenty of parties in both sides of war have tried bombing or disrupting communication and logistic assets in order to win a war.

In case of war the communication is censored.

Obvious example during WW2 both sides did it. So unless we are all passing around the bong and both sides can not be the good guys, then yes the good guys (Either the Nazis or the Allies) did it. The good guys do it all the time.

A example where the good guys (Unless you support the genocide I guess) didn't do it -

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/13457754/RwandaD...

As the genocide was taking place, the United States military drafted a plan to jam RTLM's broadcasts, but this action was never taken, with officials claiming that the cost of the operation, international broadcast agreements and "the American commitment to free speech" made the operation unfeasible

Facebook also didn't do it to stop the “the hallmarks of genocide,” in Myanmar

https://time.com/5197039/un-facebook-myanmar-rohingya-violen...