Censure de domaines russes ($6522) · Snippets · Snippets
framagit.org
Framagit

Version longue en français: https://www.bortzmeyer.org/coupure-russie.html

Several ISPs in France have started censoring rt.com via their DNS resolver.

Why are they doing this? I guess officially they’ll say it’s because of Russian propaganda about Ukraine, and that’s partially correct.

But also worth pointing out is that despite very uncritical propaganda from the regime about what happens in Russia, RT is one of the only mass media (non-independent publication) where you can have decent news about social uproar in France (gilets jaunes, anti-police-abuse riots, etc).

We haven’t reached the point where posts to RT are censored on social media (where it’s most popular) so i can’t exactly say we have “one side” to the news yet but it’s getting closer.

This message is both a fuck you to french ISPs engaging in censorship (remember Sci-Hub? TPB?) and a reminder to all the Putin fanboys around here what “there’s only one side to the news” really means: Russia is already there (there’s a few independent publications but they’ve been struggling for years with State censorship and journalist assassinations) and France is getting closer (on the other side of the narrative). The rest of you who live in countries with more free speech can’t even realize what information control means so please don’t take these words lightly.

    • UnreliantGiant
      166·
      3 years ago

      USA bad != Russia good
      I come from Germany, we hate both of them here.

      Where have I been the last 60 years? Nonexistent, mostly. Probably just like you. Stop this whataboutism

      Again, NATOs eastward “expansion” is going on for 30 years, and it doesn’t happen by force but by those countries voluntarily joining it. And Russia is still doing great advertisements showing why someone should join NATO. They do this to themselves. The only thing forbidding this expansion is an old agreement with the Soviet Union, which still doesn’t exist.

      And where is the 0.2% Nazis nonsense coming from

      Good question, I don’t know where it’s coming from either. I don’t see it anywhere in this entire thread, so it must be coming from you. I already explained in another comment what a straw man is, thanks for the great example. You even combined it with Godwin’s law.
      But since you bring it up, why doesn’t Russia bother getting rid of their own Nazis first? The Wagner Group? Why do they not-so-covertly sponsor many far-right parties in European countries? Why does a presence of Nazis even warrant an invasion? If Russia just never bothered annexing their land and sponsoring seperatists, things like Azov (which I assume is what you’re on about here) would have never even existed in the first place.

      I didn’t suddenly “wake up” to this war by the way. I have friends and relatives in Ukraine, I have actually been there and seen the country and the people. Did you? I talked to people who were fighting the separatists, and who are fighting in Kiev now. The parents of a friend are stuck in Sumi right now, a shop next to their home was bombed a few days ago. They sure love being “liberated” by Russian artillery.
      And before you say “whAt AboUT tHe USa??!”: yes they invade countries too and it’s bad too. Finally something we can agree on

      I won’t feed this discussion any further

        • Julianus
          87·
          3 years ago

          It’s hilarious that the Azov Battalion was formed from a bunch of racist rednecks because Russia invaded Crimea. And now you use it as the justification to for another invasion? Russia needs to learn to stay in it’s lane.

          As for Wagner Group, it is directly operated as a thinly veiled proxy army. They are a Kremlin asset whose leaders flash Nazi insignia as much as those Azov yokels. I wonder how the Ukrainian denazifacation of Wagner is going in Kyiv? Three foiled assassination attempts so far…

            • Julianus
              43·
              3 years ago

              What the west should have done was Marshal Plan eastern Europe. Build them up with loans and investments rather let them wallow in corruption and poverty. Look at Japan and Germany today, compared to Russia. It was a cruel, conscious choice to use them as a cheap labor stock. And now we have to deal with the results: peace in our time? Or checking an aggressor before he starts World War III.

              • southerntofuOP
                32·
                3 years ago

                What the west should have done was Marshal Plan eastern Europe.

                I’m not sure the Marshal Plan was a good deal for western Europe, although for sure it accelerated reconstruction greatly. But i’m sure eastern european countries could have fared better without western powers imposing that they must privatize everything, which was not a condition imposed on western european countries post-WWII.

                I’m very much against Putin and this is not a defense of him, but the USA establishment basically created the Russian oligarchy overnight (after the collapse of the USSR) by pushing (forcing?) local authorities to sell every State asset as quickly as possible to the highest bidder while the economy is in ruins. So you end up with a handful of people owning the entire country while ordinary people need a bag of bank notes to buy bread. It’s the very same technique they used in Iraq/Afghanistan after, and in many other places: it’s a widely documented process, but i would personally recommend Naomi Klein’s The shock doctrine and Adam Curtis’ documentaries.

                Once again, i’m not sure a eastern european “marshal plan” would have done better, but lack of western intervention post-USSR-collapse is certainly not what led to Russia being a capitalist hellhole.

                • Julianus
                  3·
                  3 years ago

                  I agree, certainly, that the fire sale was terrible and we’re living the karma from that today. Maybe leaving them alone would have been better? It’s doubtful, though. Look at Africa. Western capital avoided it like the plague and they simply suffered in stagnation until China’s investment today.

                  How did Vietnam independently become the economic power it is today? Free trade and public investment in education. That’s how it could have gone in Russia. Instead people traded their shares of the newly privatized infrastructure for boxes of vodka. And thus, the oligarchs came to own it all.

                • Julianus
                  75·
                  3 years ago

                  Ha ha, yep, NATO scared Putin so much he invaded an unaligned nation in response. Nobody cares to invade Russia. Russia would be a NATO member, if it wasn’t trapped in the cold war mentality of Putin. What do you get in return? Finland 2.0? Afghanistan 2.0? And a new batch of EU and NATO members. Putin has outmaneuvered himself.

        • nachtigall@feddit.de
          65·
          3 years ago

          Wrong facts. NATO’s eastward expansion has been going on since 1959, and we are not living in 1989.

          Between 1959 and 1998 only Spain became a new NATO member (see your own graphic) which I would hardly call eastward expansion 🤨

            • nachtigall@feddit.de
              52·
              3 years ago

              You calling something “hardly” does not matter. After all, Ukraine is also just 1 country by your logic, just like Spain, right?

              My point was rather that Spain is in the far west of Europe and therefore I would hardly call it eastward expansion.

              I meant 1949 and not 1959 to demonstrate NATO expansion

              Makes more sense in that case, especially considering Greece and Turkey.

              Also, I think, one can debate whether German reunification in 1990 counts as expansion since the 2+4 treaty states that no NATO troops may be placed permanently in eastern Germany and as far as I know this was not violated yet.

                • Liwott
                  31·
                  3 years ago

                  To the east of US and UK, the colonial masters of Anglosphere, is everything else on the east side of theirs.

                  Spain is West of UK though, at this rate you are realy suggesting that Europe be viewed as Russian territory. It is realy strange to call “eastward expansion” something that happened west of most NATO infrastructure…

            • Liwott
              32·
              3 years ago

              when I meant 1949 and not 1959 to demonstrate NATO expansion

              there’s a huge difference between “since the 60’s” (as is continuously) and “in the 50’s then since the 90’s”. Depicting what happened in the early 50’s as agressive western expansion against peaceful eastern block is at the very least unfair, both sides were preparing for the eventuality of war at that time.