I would really like to see GitHub ignoring such idiotic requests. As Russian citizen, I'd rather pay for VPN to ensure global freedom of speech, than see how our governments test boundaries of lawful and sensible censorship.
>I'd rather pay for VPN to ensure global freedom of speech,
You using a VPN wont change russian laws.That's the issue.
I'm french and piratebay is on its way to be blocked at the ISP level here. Me getting a VPN will not change the fact that this shouldnt happen and that french people need to do something to change these insane laws.
Granted its tougher to go against russian politicians and lawmakers that french ones. But you're not getting more freedom of speech and information with a VPN,neither do I.
I've been in Russia numerous times , and frankly I have hard time understanding what's going on there today. I think Putin genuinely thinks that without him Russia is doomed or something,which is a mistake.Russia can only survive if its politicians have faith in Russia's institutions, It's not about this or that guy,or it's just another dictatorship.
We've had a TPB block in the Netherlands for a couple of years, but it's been undone now - not all ISP's got a court order to block it (or agreed to do it right away), TPB is accessible in a few dozen ways (via proxies), and it apparently gets special treatment since a lot of other torrent sites weren't banned, which is just stupid.
TL;DR, blocking torrent sites is nigh-on impossible, and if you go for more sweeping automated filtering you're in violation of net neutrality and freedom of speech. (Famously, TorrentFreak, a news site that doesn't offer any kind of file sharing services, regularly gets blocked)
Using VPN will not change Russian laws, but GitHub not complying with the request might help Russian tech sector realize how dangerous and ridiculous the law is and trigger more pressure on government to change it.
"Дерьмо" is not the right word for the context. It's used to refer to a poor quality of something or someone, but not to express a feeling of disappointment.
Always interesting to see how cursing translates to other languages. Or other phrases for good/bad. 牛逼 is literally "cow cunt," but people use it to mean "great." That was very strange to me until I realized that "bad ass motherfucker" literally meant "an incestuous incompetent donkey."
Is learning how to swear properly in various languages a valid hobby? It seems like a fun one.
Isn't that the basic error of this whole ordeal? Thinking that there are tons of people who want to commit suicide, but they don't do it because they don't know how to, and finding a text document on Gitub that describes how to would remove that obstacle.
Russian authorities could easily upload anything to github to justify censorship. Since they can freely choose, the debated content can't be part of the justification. (even if I acknowledge that there is some emotional value which has to be considered in public policy..)
I hadn't realised what the content was, my argument's more one of general censorship.
Given the content It's hard to take seriously (not meaning to be disrespectful to anyone affected by suicide)...
- What sort of person looks up how to commit suicide on the internet?
I'd guess anyone wanting to commit suicide would know how; the only reason to research would be presumably be morbid facination rather than actual intent.
- Will blocking content alter the outcome of someone's decision.
Assuming it's purely instructional I doubt it. If it includes content aimed at lowering or raising the person's self esteem then perhaps it may (negatively or positively) have some influence..
- Will blocking content benefit anyone in some other way?
Perhaps; if the article proposed jumping in front of a train over taking an overdose it will lead to a train driver having to live with someone else's bad decision on their conscience, and to a number of passengers experiencing disruption (which may lead to further impacts down the line).
However, I'd say GitHub are still right to allow countries' authorities to block content...
- If the content is beneficial to the country and they block it, they lose out.
- If the content is detrimental to the country and they block it, they do well.
In both cases the country lives with the consequences of its decisions.
The only place where that argument breaks down is where the countries and their citizens interests aren't aligned. For example, an article on how to overthrow your government. In such cases citizens would look for ways to avoid being discovered reading such content anyway (e.g. using Tor to avoid monitoring, which would also get them around any such blocking) - but I admit that's bypassing the debated point.
Here the debated point becomes should a government say what content its people should be able to see, should a platform owner have the responsibility for content on their platform, should it be down to the content's creators, or to those choosing to access the content. To that, I suspect there isn't a good answer; or at least, I don't know.
So... in what way would them not complying cause your scenario above to change? Github has something awesome, everyone else gets it, Russia doesn't because they're blocking github. In fact, it's more likely to happen if they don't comply. The amount of things Russia is blocking currently is a small subset of everything on github. Odds are they're allowing access to something awesome.
Especially if there are a lot of Russian tech companies relying upon Github then that could be a useful strategy. Or it might only result in a separate Russia-only version of Github.
Of course, having lots of tech companies rely on Github cuts both ways. Yes, it might apply pressure to the Russian government but it also cuts directly into Github's finances if a significant portion of their revenue stream suddenly dries up.
Besides, given how well the recent economic sanctions worked, which were created to target those closest to Putin in order to apply pressure where it matters most, I doubt a few tech companies are going to be able to change much. I admit I could be wrong here, however.
I, too, wish that Github wouldn't have caved, but I can easily understand hot it might not have been feasible for them.
I'm not sure what your point is. Him NOT using VPN and having a broken version of the site is FAR less likely to change Russian laws than him USING a VPN while it's blocked entirely. At least in the case of it being blocked entirely, outrage will build. With the partial blocks people don't even know what they don't know.
He's ABSOLUTELY getting more freedom of speech using a VPN. It's not the amount of freedom he'd like (being able to pursue the activities without it), but it's better than nothing.
When it's partially allowed, the general public is complacent. When it's outright blocked, the people who don't know how to get around the block get frustrated and complain.
Except that we know from observation that's not what happens. China blocks facebook entirely. People who want to use it use VPNs. Instead of complaining, normal people use local alternatives like weibo that are just as good and comply with local laws.
Russia already uses Yandex instead of google and pikabu instead of reddit. Why not репо or whatever instead of github? Buy local.
> I think Putin genuinely thinks that without him Russia is doomed or something,which is a mistake.Russia can only survive if its politicians have faith in Russia's institutions, It's not about this or that guy,or it's just another dictatorship.
I've heard news media report that there are elements in the Putin camp that are too nationalist. Putin has to show he's the one running the show or something like that. (I am just reporting what I read. I can't verify if this is accurate.)
My point is that GitHub is taking down the content because of our internal politics, which is not right. Someday we will replace the government (I hope, peacefully) and get more freedom here, but if we'll allow every government to slice a piece of our global freedom, they will eat the whole pie. GH can stand against insane RKN orders, because it is community of software developers who can find workarounds. I'm asking to make the right choice.
> Stealing intellectual property is entirely different from censorship, and I'm disappointed to see these two things being lumped together here.
The Pirate Bay is entirely different from stealing intellectual property, and I'm disappointed to see these two things being lumped together here.
Also, I'd be careful throwing the word "censorship" around. What Roskomnadzor is doing here isn't terribly different from DMCA takedown notices or governments "censoring" documented child abuse.
Why be careful? It's clearly censorship by any reasonable definition.
The fact that you feel censorship is always bad but can also think of a few examples where you agree with censorship and are experiencing cognitive dissonance is your problem.
It certainly doesn't help anyone to engage in doublespeak where you define different words for censorship you agree with and censorship you don't agree with. Well, it helps in political discourse immensely but it doesn't help anyone here.
Compare The Pirate Bay to YouTube. An argument can be made that YouTube is the biggest distributor of pirated content, though you'd never make YouTube responsible for that. YouTube is a platform and so is TPB. Nobody would ever suggest blocking YouTube as a whole just because people use the platform to share copyrighted material — yet quite a lot of people think doing the very same thing to TPB is completely reasonable. I don't get that.
Whilst I'd agree that TPB is just a tool, the argument has some validity. It's called the PIRATE bay; they're heavily implying what this tool can be used for, and this matches its main use. YouTube often take action to block IP/Copyright infringement; TPB say they provide the tools and leave users to do with it as they will; i.e. they don't cooperate in preventing illegal usage.
I agree that the tool itself shouldn't be banned, but the idea of pushing for compromise (e.g. giving recognised authorities access to view users' details in cases where illegal material's being shared) doesn't seem unfair.
This way the authorities have options other than banning the tools, legitimate users don't suffer, and offending users are identified; all's good - unless you're using the tool illegally; which is fine (or at least, a different debate).
> Nobody would ever suggest blocking YouTube as a whole
Some studios have suggested that, and were campaigning for restrictions for Youtube. Hence YouTube's content filtering which recognizes and removes certain content automatically.
Roskomnadzor had a story with YouTube, had them blocked for several hours (mostly went unnoticed as IIRC they had banned only a single IPv4 address, and most ISPs hadn't even pulled the registry before the block was lifted), and had made them block a copy "Dumb Ways to Die" video in Russia.
So now it's on The Pirate Bay you no longer have access to that IP?
That's wrong of course, hence it's completely different to stealing. Just becaue copyright infringement and stealing both have potential financial impact doesn't make them coterminous.
That doesn't make it right. There have been something like 6 Kinder egg related deaths in the last 20 years [1], versus 1.5 BILLION of them sold every year [2]. Meanwhile, thousands of people die each year from choking on normal food that doesn't contain plastic objects.
I am not arguing this is right. I am just pointing out this is entirely possible. In fact I would tend to agree with you. Tobacco is a proven bad drug, and it hasn't been made illegal. There are obviously other parameters to take into account but still.
Almost no one gets stabbed on planes (far less than in dark alleys), yet try to take a knife in your hand luggage and security get very upset... did these people not study statistics? ;)
Censoring Github repositories because they provide suicide methods which is unlawful in Russia, and censoring thepiratebay because it provides access to copyrighted content which is unlawful in France, are exactly the same things.
The legal reasons behind the censorship are not important here, it all basically comes down to whether Github recognizes the local law of countries it serves content to, or not.
The bigger problem then becomes, if they cater to the laws of every country they serve content into then you have this lowest common denominator of laws EVERY user of github would have to follow.
If I post suicide methods in English, would that be censored?
If I post inflammatory information about Chinese or Indian politicians, would that censored?
When you start censoring, where do you draw the line?
When you start allowing countries to extend their jurisdiction into 'cyberspace' how could you ever expect to not fall afoul of SOME law in SOME country.
Do you only extend those concessions to large countries?
Ultimately it's github's decision to make in this case, but companies should have more than profit (or marketshare) in mind.
I find censorship repugnant. While I understand you have to comply with the laws of a country in which you are physically located, I think that should be the extent to which you accommodate things like this.
There's a very simple middle ground of only restricting access to unlawful materials for the users of the jurisdictions where that material is illegal. That's what github did, and that's what twitter did. The service as a whole isn't the lowest common denominator, it's just customized to your own local laws.
> The bigger problem then becomes, if they cater to the laws of every country they serve content into then you have this lowest common denominator of laws EVERY user of github would have to follow.
Their system is IP-based so censorship is customized depending on where you access Github from.
The Pirate Bay, by itself, does not steal intellectual property, people do. TPB is just a tool that is mostly used for that purpose. Forbidding access to it is wrong.
But I understand that to tackle the piracy problem is more practical to shut down torrent sites than to go after every single pirate.
>The Pirate Bay, by itself, does not steal intellectual property, people do. TPB is just a tool that is mostly used for that purpose. Forbidding access to it is wrong.
The conclusion doesn't follow in any way from the premises.
Even if it doesn't "steal intellectual property" itself, why it's "wrong" to forbit access to it if "it's mostly used for that purpose"?
On the oft chance that some people also download legit stuff off of it? They can do that off of any number of sites that don't also feature tons of warez and pirated movies with direct download links.
A stance like "it's wrong because I believe intellectual property is wrong" is more consistent.
This discussion is deeply entrenched in one's own world view and moral philosophy. I'll just explain myself:
I am a moral absolutist. I believe only action can have moral value (good or evil). This moral value is intrinsic and independent of context, intent or consequences. Killing for vengeance, killing in self defence and killing to save thousands of lives are all evil. Because killing is evil.
I also consider censoring, taking away and destroying something as bad. Everything in this world is unique, and was created either by natural means or by human hand. Even the most offensive and harmful thing should be considered as a product of this universe, and protected as such.
This way, I cannot approve of any decision that, in order to prevent/eliminate evil actions, either a) performs evil actions or b) censors, takes away or destroys something.
I say that TPB should not be banned or taken down. What should be addressed are the people who are using it to steal IP. What should be addressed are the people running over other people. What should be addressed are the people sharing child porn in Tor.
In the end, in my personal philosophy, the ends don't justify the means. Ever.
I know that in practical term, this is extremely naive. The world is painted in shades of gray. Sometimes we need to be practical when solving our problems. I'm just that hopefull bufoon that always tries to save the _Kobayashi Maru_ [1]
> I am a moral absolutist. I believe only action can have moral value (good or evil). This moral value is intrinsic and independent of context, intent or consequences. Killing for vengeance, killing in self defence and killing to save thousands of lives are all evil. Because killing is evil.
Your logic ignores the reality of the situation. Not sure if trolling, but:
People use TPB mainly to steal/share IP.
People use cars mainly to get places efficiently, and occasionally by accident run people over.
Nobody sets out to get hurt while running with scissors (well, maybe some episode of Jackass). Nobody except the very rare psychopath sets out to run people over in their car. Almost everybody who goes to TPB is looking to steal/share IP.
Well...yea. I kinda think they should be. I wouldn't go as low as simple weapons like knives since they are mainly tools, but I don't see why the average citizen needs a gun. The only real case I accept for them is hunting, which you don't need a glock or assault rifle to do.
And besides, we're not talking about weapons. We're talking about a website used to pirate content. I'm as logical as the next person here but people keep conflating these totally different issues on "logical" arguments.
A complete, world-wide ban on weapons wouldn't work because then you're leaving a window for some actor to make new weapons and exert that power. Shutting down torrent sites does not decrease societal stability, open anyone up to threats on their life, etc. Stop pretending guns and torrents are similar issues.
Ivan, on the other hand GitHub are not a bunch of freedom fighters, they are a company that have a responsibility to their customers and some of those customers live or traveling in Russia and are affected by this blockage.
If you're a Russian citizen, first of all you should be the one fighting against censorship by educating others, by going to protests and so on. Especially since this is now happening all over the place.
I know how it feels like. I'm a Romanian and I felt powerless countless of times, especially in recent years when the local lefties have been on a power grabbing race, with countless of abuses and bad decisions, also leaving a hole in our budget due to electoral alms, but lo and behold, they've lost the presidential race by a brutal margin, even though they were the winners of all polls and they also control the media. What happened is that a large percentage of people that never voted showed up this time. People called their families, people talked on Facebook, people took it to the streets. Just like the protests from a year and a half ago that stopped a corrupted and damaging gold mining project. I'm telling you, it works - and btw, mass-media is in general corrupted, which is why the Internet is such a disruptive force.
I don't approve of censorship, but for a counterargument:
I think it is good that there exist websites dedicated to free speech, where it is possible to post content disapproved of by governments.
I think it is also good that there exist politically neutral websites dedicated to technical work, relatively un-interfered with by censorship. (Not everyone has the means to set up VPN, and even those who do, would sometimes rather be getting on with their jobs instead of dealing with that.)
It strikes me as necessary and appropriate for these to be separate sites.
Let me clarify a bit, I'm a former employee of russian telecom operator.
Almost everyone can file a complaint. Roskomnadzor's experts decide if it's valid (no court order is needed) then sends notice, and a site's owner has 3 days to comply.
Telecom operator doesn't have to block entire site, only the offending content. But, as you know it's not always possible due to, you know, https or absence of DPI hardware.
And almost all, I think, who filed complaints, tried to show the absurdity of the situation.
It's the essence of situation in Russia, government tries to do some "good", but even then it does it mostly horribly wrong. Incompetence is everywhere empowered by the fact that those incompetent people are here to stay.
tl;dr: Russian law enforcement required GitHub to block certain content in Russia. GitHub has complied and put up a list of the blocked URLs in this repo.
From a short look at the linked/blocked documents, all of them are suicide instructions written in Russian.
Example of "suicide instructions" (translated by @goruha):
1. Burn when entering the Earth's atmosphere Quaternary: probably open a few minutes.
Availability: problematic - it is necessary to go into Earth orbit.
Trustworthy: Trustworthy as much as you can do it.
Notes: Exit into open space in low Earth orbit. Then turn down enough to get into the Atmosphere. You will witness of exiting view!
This is the alt.suicide.holiday methods file, translated into Russian:
37. BEING BURNED UP IN UNPROTECTED RE-ENTRY (silly)
Time:
probably a few minutes
Available:
if you happen to be able to get into orbit
Certainty:
about as certain as you can get!
Notes:
Just go for a spacewalk in a low earth orbit, and
decelerate enough to enter the atmosphere. You'll get a
great view...
An even better way, super glue your hands to your head, tie cheese wire around your neck, then jump off of a building so's it looks like you pulled your own head off. Might send them a pull request now actually.
This is a really strange phenomenon, and I feel like there is a bigger context in which this exchange between the citizens and the state should be viewed.
Looking at the first takedown, there is the conspicuously named account "russian-suicide", which contains a fork of a blog. A cursory look reveals one post just like the other suicide lists, but it notably references a poem about how teenagers should just kill themselves because they have only shit to expect from growing up. (http://mudacek.livejournal.com/720.html)
The poem is prefaced by an assertion the author expects Roscomnadzor will take it down soon. It seems likely that they have been taking down anything with the word suicide they've come across. My guess would be some programmer reads these poems and started putting these silly suicide instructions into repos as a form of protest, and the authorities are trying to kill the protest as well.
>My guess would be some programmer got their blog shut down because it somewhere said something like "going to Ukraine is suicide" and the authorities used the censor suicide rule in their formal decision.
There is no such phrase. Subject of abuse was another file in repo that contains satiric poetry about Roskomnadzor that I copied from somewhere in the early 2013 to my blog. It sure contains suicide instructions as well as story about entry site being blocked because of single file.
In the early 2013 it looked funny, but now you can't really tell what is satire work and what is Russian government reality.
Another repos that were added in September/October 2014 (after first github ban) by different people contained list of methods to kill yourself.
So is it your livejournal that is linked to in the "suicide.rst" post?
What's up with the bans on suicide mentions? Is the topic growing because the public feels without hope as the poem seems to suggest, or is Roskomnadzor just tying to keep busy?
Still, I'm surprised they bother with github being such a specialized website.
Do you know of other surprising examples of sites getting takedown request because of "immoral behaviour" (or whatever the name is)? Does the suicide list when hosted on bitbucket get taken down? On deviantart? Etc
If they want to render this information ineffective, instead of playing whack-a-mole with takedowns they should start making Albert Camus required reading in high school.
From what I can tell with my vague knowledge of Russian, they're not even meant to be serious. One of the ways to go is "nanobots".
Even if I disagree with the censorship, I can sorta understand what the problem is if it the list was meant to be serious - but banning black humour is just ridiculous.
Well, some are "common sense" like crashing the car at 150km/h or throwing yourself under the train.
There are however methods like programming some industrial robot to drill your skull and vacuum brains out… :/
> tl;dr: Russian law enforcement required GitHub to block certain content in Russia. GitHub has complied and put up a list of the blocked URLs in this repo.
I suppose we will soon learn what is the intersection of all free spech laws of the world.
Should the original Wolfenstein 3d images be released as Creative Commons and put up in a GitHub repository, will GitHub be banned in Germany as well?
>I suppose we will soon learn what is the intersection of all free spech laws of the world.
Yeah, something like ACID test but for governments. Ultimate pack of offensive material in different jurisdictions.
Some nazi symbolics, some soviet symbolic, denial of Holocaust , Holodomor, some LGTB propaganda, something offensive for black or feminists, or Islam, or His Majesty the King of Thailand. And copyright infringement of course.
Sounds like a great idea, but who's going to decide what kind of porn should be included in the ACID test? Even within the US, certain types of porn are legal in some jurisdictions and not others (think various kinds of rape fantasy porn, things involving various bodily fluids, etc).
Not in the next few years since some years ago a push to implement DNS-level blocking met with an outcry by the German geeksphere that ultimately pushed the pirate party in elections. The plans then were dropped on fear of censorship like in GB and Australia.
But of course, this could be resurrected at some time - and Nazi symbols would be high on the list.
I'm not really sure, don't they already block sites that contain all kinds of nazi propaganda even if they're hosted outside of Germany?
If there were hundreds of accounts sharing nazi propaganda all over Github, wouldn't they be forced by law to block Github in Germany?
As far as I can see it would not be against the Github terms of service to share such content as long as it doesn't violate any laws in your jurisdiction.
I wonder if the fact that many of them, as far as I could see, mentioned "The Eternal Putin" as one of the reasons that the person might as well give up on life.
I am not so sure about it. Blocking/prohibiting information will only lead to increased interest, and it will never be possible to block all instances of that information.
A far superior approach would be better social care for people who might commit suicide, but that would cost money and effort, as opposed to a symbolic act of prohibition.
Besides, Internet filters always start with the really evil things, like suicide instructions or child pornography, and once established they are slowly expanded to cover terrorism, homosexual pornography, regular pornography, copyright infringement and finally political opposition. You really do not want to go down that slippery slope.
> One example of this is the UK porn filter which is now also used to block jihad propaganda
The article does not support your claim.
EDIT: To clarify, as per the reply I gave further down: There is no country wide "UK porn filter". There are voluntary filters put in place by each of the largest providers that are wildly inconsistent in what they block, and wildly ineffective.
Most of the filtering is also opt-in or opt-out for most of these providers, mostly apart from blocks targeting child porn.
Outside of the top 5-6 providers, many smaller providers don't filter at all.
They have also agreed to ensure that terrorist and extremist material is captured by their filters to prevent children and young people coming across radicalising material.
The point being there is no single government mandated "UK porn filter". Each of the biggest ISPs have individual filters. Many of the smaller ISPs don't have filters.
EDIT: Maybe whoever downvoted might care to explain why? The comment is factual. There is no legally mandated filtering across the board in the UK. The only legally mandated filtering is a small set of specific court orders targeting a group of the largest ISPs, requiring them to filter specific sites (Pirate Bay being the main target).
The point made originally was that Internet filtering is bad for society. The fact that there is not a single mandated filter but a set of different(?) filters at the major ISPs, which do not even have a legal basis, is just making the situation worse for end users. While I admit that my original wording was misleading, I can not see how the enacted back-and-forth contributes to the discussion.
From the media coverage of the "UK porn filter" that I followed, the government said they would make a law to require filtering, then the ISPs jumped on it and implemented their filtering systems, and then the proposed laws failed / stalled.
I do not know enough about the UK ISP landscape to be able to determine if all users of the major ISPs can switch to a non-filtering one, and at what additional expense.
> From the media coverage of the "UK porn filter" that I followed, the government said they would make a law to require filtering, then the ISPs jumped on it and implemented their filtering systems, and then the proposed laws failed / stalled.
That's not quite how it went. The government hinted that it might do so unless the ISPs implemented filters that people had to ask to opt-out of.
The ISPs jumped on adding a filtering choice for users in the form of a checkbox when they sign on. Something many of them had before. Some providers - notably the mobile providers - have defaulted to opt-out (since long before the government interference, on the basis that e.g. pay as you go sims can easily be obtained without providing id, and as a result they don't know if their subscribers are over 18), while most regular ISPs default to opt-in.
The government subsequently then did not propose any law, and issued triumphant press releases about protecting children, after Camerons advisers had been pleading with ISPs to at least make the checkboxes default to ticked. Largely the result was that they got mocked for not actually achieving any changes that made a difference to anything at all.
All the largest ISPs still filters child porn regardless of subscriber choice, but that's the only thing you're not able to turn off. Even that filtering is not covering nearly all ISPs.
>You really do not want to go down that slippery slope.
Russia already did. Suicide filters were introduced two years ago or something. Now they are used to block porn, political opponents, sites about drugs and whatever government wants to declare "extrimism". Ah, and last time they added copyright infringement to the list.
There are different "UK porn filters". That alone suggests that the IWF list has not been expanded into general purpose censorship, and that other methods are used for different illegal content.
why? Would it be reasonable to burn/censor books dealing with such matter, maybe describing some methods of suicide? Homicide? Different political views?
Suicide is a thorny issue, because while on hand there are free speech issues with it, and some people do think it through and have rational reasons for wanting to commit suicide (e.g. facing a protracted degenerative disease that causes lots of pain might be one), most people who are suicidal are most at risk as a result of temporary emotional states that they have little or no control over.
Accordingly, adding very small roadblocks for people who are contemplating suicide can have substantial effects in reducing suicide (an example is the restriction on amount of paracetamol/acetaminophen that can be sold per transaction in the UK), and people who attempt suicide and fail often express relief afterwards.
I'm not sure where the line ought to go, but that in any case puts it in a very different category from e.g. homicide or different political views.
Censoring suicide instructions is probably by far the least objectionable part of Russian censorship.
Do you really suppose that state-wide censorship machine is a justifiable and "a very small roadblock" for people contemplating suicide? Are you serious?
Let's put the fact aside that these "instructions" are a joke; consider a wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods. Should this page be censored? Since when removing the definition of a word in a dictionary makes a thing disappear? Sure, suicide is an issue, sure, it's better not to have it, but to censor anything mentioning it sounds like a bad adaptation of Orwells' 1984.
What's the problem with suicide prevention, suicide hotlines, destigmatisation of mental health problems? I'll tell you what's the problem - it doesn't help you instill an intellectual control system, censorship and, quite frankly, a form mind control (via media filters).
A censorship by any other reason is still a tool of oppression. It is not a tool for solving problems.
Also, could you please provide a reference to a single study published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal of psychology, which supports your claim that small roadblocks, and especially restriction on amount of paracetamol/acetaminophen sold per transaction helps prevent suicide.
Coincidentally, paracetamol poisoning a retarded way to go - it is probably more painless to kill oneself by drinking a lot of water (6l per 3hrs is enough to kill you). Why aren't drinking water sales not limited then? In fact, why aren't we all absolved of our personal responsibilities and taken care by the state, like some kind of a nanny?
As long as you can get into your car, remove the seat belt and run 200 miles an hour into a bridge support the idea of censoring suicide is stupid.
Of course the people who fail express relief - if they don't we might lock them up. The same goes for your blanket arguments about temporary emotional states, _when you threaten a man with prison (whatever the hell you want to call it) he is way likely to say whatever he thinks you want to get out_.
The problem with this position is that censorship is a very slippery slope. What happens when the boundaries keep getting pushed. Where do you stop? Who decides what is Ok and what is not? What may be amoral to one may not be amoral to another.
Even if it's legitimate to prohibit, it's even more futile than trying to stop file sharing. At least a copy of The Hunger Games doesn't fit in a 4chan comment.
This is odd. How come when russia requests a block it only gets blocked for russians, but when america requests a block (DMCA) it gets blocked for everyone worldwide?
The difference is that a DMCA request is a takedown request, not a block request, so to legally comply with the DMCA you have to stop hosting the file. The Russians in this case don't have legal jurisdiction to demand that github removes the file, all they can do is ask nicely that github blocks them. Had the files been hosted within Russia then no doubt they would have the legal jurisdiction to demand they be taken down.
Probably because they are incorporated in the US and could be drug into court here more easily than Russia. I also heard the EU calling for Google to break up but I doubt that will happen.
Did this have to do with some kind of censorship or was it copyright related?
I'm pretty sure that if you send a take-down notice alleging copyright infringement from another country, material in question is blocked for everyone, too.
Odd? Image you're a Github. There are thousands of paying accounts in Russia and also a zillion Russians contributing to open-source projects.
Now imagine all these people now have no access and start sending emails asking why their paid accounts now aren't working? Russian devs working on tight schedule, forereigners working in Russia, subs doing contracts for american companies - now all of them are DENIED.
Would it really be better for github to continue blocking all those innocent people because of a clearly a set-up type suicide-notes post?
That wasn't my point at all. What I meant: I, as an European, notice content is blocked for me every time America requests a block on GitHub. Now I hear about Russia request a block on content, and it seems that only Russians are blocked but I am not. This caused me to wonder why America got to decide what everyone in the world can access, yet Russia only gets to decide for their own country.
The other replies to my comment probably got it right, with GitHub being based in the US.
This is where I really don't understand the concept of trying to force your law/will/idea(ls) on other people.
-Today I posted an image of an apple on my web-page.
-The city in the next town over has decided that images of apples are bad/wrong/evil and has passed a law banning the display of apples.
-The city that I live in gets an angry letter from the other city upset about the portrayal of apples and the wanton disregard for their laws.
Why oh why can't we live in a world where the concept of "If this material is illegal in your country, you shouldn't be looking at it."
or
"Be aware of laws that pertain to you and respect them or change them if you disagree."
The concept you describe is a philosophy in and of itself. Sounds like a great place to me, but I think it's fair to say that at least some people on this planet would rather live under a different set of governing principles. At a higher level, I want to live in a world where they can live in that different society, and we can live in ours.
> This is where I really don't understand the concept of trying to force your law/will/idea(ls) on other people.
You should have wrote: "on other people that live under the same legal jurisdiction".
Your attitude towards the law is a real problematic attitude that is currently more common in this 'generation' (generation not referring exactly to people of a certain age, but more as people living in a certain time). Since we have internet now and there are many movements that promote 'freedom' in all of their possible interpretations, many people find it easy to go over the top and start demanding things like "Be aware of laws that pertain to you and respect them _or change them if you disagree_".
You guys should take time to understand what law is and why is it good for it to exist, and also, why you should respect the jurisdiction pertaining to other regions or other people (EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH IT). If the majority of citizens in this world understood this really simple civical principle, most of the current problems with the world would be nonexistant.
> why you should respect the jurisdiction pertaining to other regions
Some of us highly value open debate and discussion. Perhaps because it's a core value in some cultures around the world, but maybe that's overly romantic. I suspect many of us have just read Milton's Areopagitica [1] or Mill [2], and have yet to hear any convincing refutations.[3]
So those of us who recognize the value of open sharing of ideas will chafe at any suggestion that ideas are best refuted with suppression.
Others in the world don't share these views.
So we're left with a dilemma that cannot be resolved through mutual respect. You can't both openly debate controversial topics and be silent about them. There's no middle ground. There's no "respecting others beliefs" on this. These are strictly incompatible views on the world, on what information I'm allowed to discuss with my neighbor.
I don't believe any government should have the power of thought control, so I reject the attempt of (especially foreign governments) telling me what I can or cannot discuss with their citizens. I respect the people around the world, but I cannot always respect their laws.
You guys should take time to understand what law is and why is it good for it to exist, and also, why you should respect the jurisdiction pertaining to other regions or other people (EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH IT). If the majority of citizens in this world understood this really simple civical [sic] principle, most of the current problems with the world would be nonexistant. [sic]
If the majority of rulers in this world subjected themselves to the law, it might become an institution worthy of a citizen's respect.
> "Although, we may not always agree with the choices the Russian government has made, we respect the country's sovereignty and recognize that Russians may have different cultural sensitivities"
GitHub has a right to do whatever they want with their product; I don't really care. But this sort of double speak is infuriating. Calling "cultural sensitivities" the expressions of an authoritatian government that systematically persecutes its citizens is a major "fuck you" to all Russians.
The issue here are the suicide instructions written in Russian language so it definitely is about "cultural sensitivities" and not about persecution of civilians by an authoritarian government.
Just because it is okay in your or my culture to distribute such content doesn't mean it is everywhere else - nor that it should be as long as laws reflect the will of the people.
Even in US there are topics that will get you into real trouble, not just your page censored. For example: Try creating a blog where you instruct your readers on how to build an explosive belt or bombs. Maybe combine it with religious fundamentalist rhetoric. You'd probably even end up in jail for that.
Just because it is okay in your or my culture to distribute such content doesn't mean it is everywhere else - nor that it should be as long as laws reflect the will of the people.
Laws have not been reflecting the will of people in Russia for quite some time. There's no opposition and you can't vote these people out of the office. If you protest, you're an outcast, probably even a state enemy.
Also, that document was sarcastic. It's obvious from a single glance. This situation is just bureaucrats gone berserk supported by laws written by morons, and has nothing to do with cultural sensitivities or suicide.
It's always a matter of the type of content you distribute and the reach you have.
Take for example Anwar al-Awlaki. He was a US citizen and his content was extremist religious views that he distributed via Internet. Without a trial or conviction he was killed by a drone strike for that, as was his 16 year old son in a second drone strike.
We do not get to vote on how other societies organise themselves.
And on what basis do you even judge that some other culture is repressed and authoritarian? Just because you would feel oppressed under these laws?
There are many different cultures out there with vastly different social rules and moral codes and the people living there mostly agree with those rules. Who can judge what set of rules is right?
I just know which social order is the right one for me but never which one is universally good. If I attempted to introduce the type of social order and free speech that I prefer in the middle east, there'd be plenty of people there that would try to kill me for that. And the same is also true the other way around.
I'm not claiming their culture is objectively bad or should not be practiced. I'm saying that I should not have to suffer because of their cultural preferences.
All these suicide manuals -- trolling. Someone trolled github by submitting suicidal texts in order to get it blocked, because morons from roskomnadzor will block such sites immediately without judgement and investigation.
If I were to put my tinfoil hat on, these repos sure look like an attempt to force the Russian supervisory agency into issuing takedown notices and prompting friction with GitHub. There are a lot of stupid laws and I'd say GH found a very simple and unbtrusive way of dealing with one of them.
Blocking any website is foolishy. Every sansible user knows about VPN. I use https://privatoria.net/ and have no problems. Moreover VPN helps me in developing, as i need static IP to get access to different services from different places like office, home or cafe.
So let me get this right: Github, an american company, bows down to threads by a russian company, about russian law, to censor american peoples access?
Note that as opposed to repositories infringing copyright (those they get DMCA takedown notices for), the repository itself is not blocked, at least from the UK.
So Github banned Brendan Eich who was so mild in his beliefs they were unknown for years after he contributed to a principled cause. However, they welcome the Russian Federation, which has thrown thousands of people into gulags, taken over media outlets, and has rolled over US allies with impunity.
I'm an idiot! I blanked and decided he was CEO of Github, not Mozilla. Downvotes to my totally irrelevant comment richly deserved. Apologies. Thanks for calling me out.
