> The writer of this article even seems to suggest that Google or Cloudflare could have blocked them from their DNS,

No the writer is irritated that local ISPs are confronted with a regulation which can be interpreted as requiring them to go _far_ beyond DNS blocking while non local DNS provider aren't required to do any blocking when providing service to the UK.

In Poland they already blocked some Polish websites on DNS level for spreading "Russian propaganda".

Never let a good opportunity pass by, I guess. Information should be free imo, though I do not know how to deal with people who believe even the most obvious bs.

Can DNS level blocks be bypassed using other DNS services? Google and Cloudflare are by far not the only ones, pretty much every ISP has their own.

I’m sure worst case you could run your own recursive resolver locally (on a Raspberry Pi or something) but you do get a bit of a performance hit for sites you aren’t visiting regularly.

Censorship is (roughly speaking) the suppression or prohibition of a particular point of view, or the speech of a person. This is not that. No points of view are prohibited, and if these people want to express their opinions in public or on other forums that choose to deal with them, they are feee to do so. This is a restraint of trade.

No. Preventing you from reading someone’s website is censorship.

Closing a book shop or newspaper because it was funded by criminals isn’t censorship. That’s hysterical hyperbole.

Anyway this isn’t really about reading websites particularly, it’s mainly about accessing commercial internet services like search or commercial sites. It just happens that internet publishers are also businesses so they can be affected too. However there’s nothing in this targets speech and that doesn’t seem to be the intention.

But they're not closing the websites - they're preventing people in the UK from accessing them.

To work with your analogy - this is like intercepting a shipment of newspapers, and blacking out any ads placed in them by criminals. Regardless of what the ads say - they're criminals, why should they be entitled to say "I'm innocent"?

Sorry - why should they be entitled to printing press amplify their voice. They can just scream in their cells - their free speech isn't being curtailed.

Who knows, maybe it is too dangerous to let them speak - but at least have the honesty to call it what it is - censorship.

It's like banning anyone in the UK ordering things from the Maffia in Italy, and it happens that one of the businesses the Maffia operates is a newspaper, so you're banned from importing it. Being a publisher isn't an end run around the rest of the law.

> ordering [..] importing [..]

So block financial transactions with the sanctioned entities - problem solved. Unless your real intent isn't blocking money, but speech.

These people profit from the operation of these sites, or many of them anyway, that’s what is being targeted. Even in the case of a publishing site advertising revenue due to page impressions is a legitimate target.

What on earth makes you think "designated individuals" are criminals? They aren't being prosecuted, they haven't been found guilty in any court of law. They've just been blacklisted by some random civil servants and politicians who want to be seen to be doing something. Not much different to the US no fly lists.

Honestly that’s a separate issue, I don’t know about the legality of this, I’m just pointing out this is nothing to do with censorship.

cen·sorship /ˈsensərSHip/

noun 1.The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Does this fit that definition? I would argue no it does not but I’m open to be convinced otherwise.

It's suppression or prohibition of etc.

And it's because the government (politics) deems it unacceptable.

Fits the definition.

The business enterprises of these people are being targeted. If some of those happen to be publishing businesses, they are included, but publishing businesses or opinion sites etc are not being singled out. It’s not the content of these sites (those that are content sites) that’s the issue, it’s the business beneficial ownership. It’s their finances that are the target, not their speech.

Publishing businesses are still businesses and subject to the law. If they want to exercise their speech rights in other legal ways, they are free to do so.

I agree with simonh on this one. Ideas aren’t being censored. Political parties aren’t being censored. I do not agree with saying “because government” makes it political. That’s like saying speeding tickets are political “because government” is involved in the process.

Most public forums have a very narrow window of allowed ideas. Personal websites are the best way to explore new things and not get pigeonholed.

It's weird to hear someone on HN argue against them. Of all the forums I use this is probably the most pro-personal-website one.

The target of this isn’t particularly personal web sites like blogs and such. All the commercial activities and business interests of these people are being targeted. It’s mainly about commercial sites for which these people are the beneficial owners. Remember we talking about billionaire oligarchs many of who’s businesses will have commercial web sites and web applications. As a matter of law it’s conceivable it might affect their personal sites, if they have any, but that’s incidental.

What other options are there to fight enemy propaganda?

Foreign propaganda should be exposed, documented, and contextualized instead of given more power by banning and removing it.

https://scottberkun.com/2013/banning-things-makes-them-power...

That sounds like the “something must be done, this is something, so this must be done” argument. Seems to be the most common argument pattern for censorship of all kinds - doesn’t matter if the course of action is ineffective or possibly harmful in the medium term.

It boils down to “if we can’t think of any good solutions to a difficult problem, then we should try bad solutions even if they’re counterproductive”.

Sometimes you need to act in the present. Russia is bombing civilians and is pumping propaganda into nations that help Ukraine trying to convince those nations to not support Ukraine. I don't see how stopping that propaganda is counterproductive. Once the war is over with Russia losing it and Putin out then we stop with the censorship and go back to counter the propaganda using education, information, etc.

The best way to fight enemy propaganda is not letting it get to the point of becoming enemies, defusing it long before the information war. The slow institutional degradation in Russia was nobody's concern - "meh, it's Russians; not my business" - until it suddenly was. To not become enemies, you have to listen and allow the other party change you. Then you can attempt to bring your point and change them.

When the communication becomes "enemy propaganda", you are forced to raise a wall which looks suspiciously like what your "enemy" does and wants from you as well. Mutual coexistence is impossible without two-way communication, and that means they will also going to influence you, whether you want it or not, even if you raise a wall. Communication here not necessarily being words but actions.

Turns out it was your business as well, after all. Think about it today because it might be too late tomorrow.

Truth and transparency?

Have better propaganda of your own? Both the delivery mechanism and the payload.

My choice: drop the strategy of keeping the population dumb and unable to realize it so they are easy to manipulate.

This. We were taught in school to recognize and analyze propaganda, advertising, and PR. I'm not immune but sometimes it almost seems like it when I talk to other people.

Who is we? YMMV, but any sort of emphasis on critical thinking wasn't my experience in an Arizona school district in the late eighties/early nineties. If such curriculum was available, the kids who took it were likely outliers in having influences to push them in that direction.

Yeah, I was homeschooled. It sounds to me like public schools actively discourage this kind of thing.