Since it is Christmas and we are talking about welcoming strangers in your house, I think we need to remember the story of the author of the most popular Christmas Carrol ("Carrol of the bells") - Ukrainian composer Mykola Leontovych.
His family was hosting a stranger in their house for the night in 1921. Stranger said he has nowhere to go, so they allowed him to stay in the room with Leontovych himself.
The stranger ended up being a Russia undercover checkist who killed Leontovych and robbed his family. [0]
What is your intent in sharing this? Why do we need to remember this story? Do you - and others who are talking about how strangers might murder you and your family - really think that people don't consider that risk or something?
To be honest, I think VPN businesses and specifically politically charged ones like Mullvad is doing disservice for the security of the country and specifically EU in this case.
I think the right course of action should be a political activism, not a technological one. Especially when the company doing it makes a fortune.
The course, when one can just disengage from participating in society by sidestepping the problems by either using VPNs in terms of censorship or by using Crypto in case of regulations is very dangerous and will reinforce the worst trends.
Finally such person will still have to rely on the community around for physical protection to live.
So instead of speaking from the high ground, please, tell us what your solution about mass disinformation happening from US social media megacorps, Russia mass disinformation, mass recruitment of people for sabotage on critical infrastructure.
Tell us, how can we keep living in free society when this freedom is being used as a leverage by forces trying to destroy your union.
I just want to remind you that dismantling EU is strategic goal of the US, Russia and China.
Please, give us your political solutions to the modern problems instead of earning a fortune by a performance free speech activism.
In the history of humanity, it's never been the side attempting to restrict expression and the flow of information that's been in the right.
You don't "solve" the spread of "disinformation" because it's not a real problem in the first place. What you call "disinformation" is merely an idea with which you disagree. It doesn't matter whether any idea comes from the west, from China, from Russia, or Satan's rectum: it stands on its own and competes on its merits with other ideas in the mind of the public.
An idea so weak that it can survive only by murdering alternative ideas in the cradle is too fragile to deserve existing at all.
When you block the expression of disagreement, you wreck the sense-making apparatus that a civilization uses to solve problems and navigate history. You cripple its ability to find effective solutions for real but inconvenient problems. That, not people seeing the wrong words, is the real threat to public safety.
As we've learned painfully over the past decade, it is impossible for a censor to distinguish falsehood from disagreement. Attempts to purify discourse always and everywhere lead to epistemic collapse and crises a legitimacy. The concept is flawed and any policy intended to "combat the spread of disinformation" is evil.
Arguing that "disinformation is not a real problem, there's only ideas" is reductionism, like arguing that there's no such a thing as a forest, only trees. And a "battle of ideas" can definitely favor the side with more money - if that weren't the case, then why do politicians spend millions trying to outspend their opponents?
There are most certainly groups of people spreading objectively false statements, not as "disagreement" (although that exists too) but because they expect to profit from it. Is it easy to detect? No. Does that mean we should give up? I'd also say no.
>So instead of speaking from the high ground, please, tell us what your solution about mass disinformation happening from US social media megacorps, Russia mass disinformation, mass recruitment of people for sabotage on critical infrastructure.
Why is the onus of explaining this on the people opposing it? Did any of the proposing politicians ever explain how their plan is going to solve any of these, rather than just being a massive power grab packaged up in "think about the children"? There are plenty of explanations on why this is not going to stop crime, why do you want more explanations and solutions from people telling you this is not going to work, rather than asking the people proposing "how is this going to work"?
> So instead of speaking from the high ground, please, tell us what your solution about mass disinformation happening from US social media megacorps, Russia mass disinformation, mass recruitment of people for sabotage on critical infrastructure.
Education. Education. Education. The only thing that ever worked. is Education. Censorship and a total surveillance state aren't an option. Why bother protecting freedom and democracy if you have to destroy freedom and democracy to do so?
And in case of sabotage of critical infrastructure, the answer is three-fold: 1. Apply the law to the saboteurs. 2. Retaliate in asymmetric fashion. We can't sabotage their hospitals but we can stop buying russian oil and gas, take their money and 3. arm ukraine.
> Tell us, how can we keep living in free society when this freedom is being used as a leverage by forces trying to destroy your union.
Are you or have you ever been a communist? We surveived the cold war and the warsaw pact. We can survive a third rate petrol station masquerading as a state.
> Please, give us your political solutions to the modern problems instead of earning a fortune by a performance free speech activism.
The problem is that many of the most highly educated people are the ones fully supporting censorship in the fight against disinformation. Higher education has become a bastion of illiberal ideology.
Universities may have cured us of some forms of indoctrination but exposed us to others: for example, nuclear power was demonized for decades is academia and our avoiding it has set us back as a civilization.
The "answer" here isn't education per se. A would-be censor might look at the spread of an inconvenient idea and conclude the education isn't working and therefore harder measures are justified.
The answer is epistemic humility and historical literacy. A good education instills both. They teach us that one can be wrong without shame, that testing ideas makes us stronger, and that no good has come out of boost ideas beyond what their merits can support.
Specifically, I want universities to do a much better job of teaching people to argue a perspective with which they disagree. A well-educated person can hold the best version of his opponent's idea in mind and argue it persuasively enough that his opponent agrees that he's been fairly heard. If people can't do that at scale, they're tempted to reach for censorship instead of truth seeking.
Another thing I want from universities (and all schools) is for them to inculcate the idea that the popularity of an idea has nothing to do with its merits. The irrational primate brain up-weights ideas it sees more often. The censor (if we're steelmanning) believes that coordinated influence campaigns can hijack the popularity heuristic and make people believe things they wouldn't if those ideas diffused organically through the information ecosystem.
This idea is internally consistent, sure, but 1) the censorship "cure" is always worse than the disease, and 2) we can invest in bolstering epistemics instead of in beefing up censorship.
We are rational primates. We can override popularity heuristics. Doing so is a skill we must be taught, however, and one of the highest ROI things we can do in education right now is teach it.
Nuclear isn't a silver bullet. Producing, handling, and disposing of its fuel is dangerous and carbon-intense. My state college wasn't anti-nuclear. I think the fundamentals just don't make much sense as solar, wind, and other sources have improved.
> Most people don’t even have an internal monologue
Is there any scientific indication that whether private thoughts are automatically verbalized actually has an impact on cognitive activity or function?
Also where do you get this idea that most people lack an internal monologue? Afaik research indicates that totally lacking verbal thinking is very rare.
There is a person thinking about how to solve actual problems at the bus/rail stop. The other person is totally reactive (someone FaceTimes them), mostly glued to doomscrolling (consuming non stop). There are disproportionately more of the latter than the former.
There’s nothing wrong with that it’s just how humans are wired. It’s pretty obvious.
> I think the right course of action should be a political activism, not a technological one. Especially when the company doing it makes a fortune.
We tried that. My cofounder and I, as well as several of our colleagues, tried classic political activism in the early 2000s. It became increasingly clear to us that there are many powerful politicians, bureaucrats and special interest groups that don't act in good faith. They lie, abuse their positions, misuse state funds and generally don't care what the population or civil society thinks. They have an agenda, and don't know the meaning of intellectual honesty.
> The course, when one can just disengage from participating in society by sidestepping the problems by either using VPNs in terms of censorship .. is very dangerous and will reinforce the worst trends.
It sounds like you're arguing for censored populations to respect local law, not circumvent censorship through technological means, and only work to remove censorship through political means.
Generally, the more a state engages in online censorship the less it cares about what its population thinks. There are plenty of jurisdictions where political activism will get you jailed, or worse.
Are you seriously suggesting that circumventing state censorship is immoral and wrong?
> So instead of speaking from the high ground, please, tell us what your solution about mass disinformation happening from US social media megacorps, Russia mass disinformation, mass recruitment of people for sabotage on critical infrastructure.
Social media companies make money by keeping people engaged, and it seems the most effective way of doing that is to feed people fear and rage bait. Yes, that's a problem. As is disinformation campaigns by authoritarian states.
Powerful companies have powerful lobbyists, and systematically strive for regulatory capture. Authoritarian states who conduct disinformation campaigns against their population are unlikely to listen to reform proposals from their population.
I don't claim to have a solution for these complex issues, but I'm pretty sure mass surveillance and censorship will make things worse.
> Tell us, how can we keep living in free society when this freedom is being used as a leverage by forces trying to destroy your union.
Political reform through civil discourse cannot be taken for granted. Mass surveillance and censorship violate the principle of proportionality, and do not belong in a free society.
> Please, give us your political solutions to the modern problems instead of earning a fortune by a performance free speech activism.
I'm not sure what you mean by performance. Please clarify.
> My cofounder and I, as well as several of our colleagues, tried classic political activism in the early 2000s. It became increasingly clear to us that there are many powerful politicians, bureaucrats and special interest groups that don't act in good faith. They lie, abuse their positions, misuse state funds and generally don't care what the population or civil society thinks. They have an agenda, and don't know the meaning of intellectual honesty.
I understand that.
You created a company which allows people to regain freedoms limited by their governments.
My only problem is that it ultimately undermines the government power and makes it weaker.
By creating a technical solutions to subvert government function, you are basically moved into a business of bypassing government regulations for people with money. Obviously when the market becomes large enough, governments can no longer ignore it.
The problem is that it creates reinforcement loops in such ways that political change becomes more difficult.
For example, we may imagine that Russia and China target people through social media. I believe that the effectiveness of this influence cannot be overstated, so naturally some governments may start thinking about limiting it by enforcing bans on some social media platforms or create laws to force them to be more transparent. You may not agree with this personally, and believe in the freedom of choice, but you are still in a business of exposing people to enemy propaganda against their democratically elected governments.
> It sounds like you're arguing for censored populations to respect local law, not circumvent censorship through technological means, and only work to remove censorship through political means.
Yes, in democratic countries I believe population should feel the pressure and resolve it through the process of electing the politicians representing their values, not buying workarounds from the vendor.
I believe that the exact same ads you have on the streets in the cities should be published by politicians or NGOs and not a business.
> Generally, the more a state engages in online censorship the less it cares about what its population thinks. There are plenty of jurisdictions where political activism will get you jailed, or worse.
I agree with that. To be honest, I do care about the EU mostly and I do think that political activism is still possible even when there is additional risk.
> Are you seriously suggesting that circumventing state censorship is immoral and wrong?
There is a very fine line, and I don't know the answer. I do belive that people should have a right for a private communication. I also do not trust law enforcement agencies and people there.
On the other hand, I do know that vulnerable people (teens, minorities, sick, elderly) in my country get recruited by Russia en masses through messengers. I do know that Russia engages in psychological warfare through Telegram, Facebook and TikTok without governments able to do anything. I do see the politicians in the western countries aligns with the psychological warfare of enemies because it helps them to get in power.
I do want for politicians to fight for my rights, but I don't want that from businesses to be honest.
> I'm not sure what you mean by performance. Please clarify.
I mean, activism is clearly a part of your business strategy. The more discussion you create around issues related to privacy and censorship the more users you'll have - that's why I call it performative. Mullvad's business depends on the performance of fighting for the rights at the same time as benefitting from the fight itself.
I do feel that there is a big disconnect between finding a technical solution and finding a political solution, and I feel like the tech sector becoming more and more influential and I also believe this will not end well.
> Thank you for the reply, I really appreciate it.
Likewise.
> You created a company which .. ultimately undermines the government power and makes it weaker.
Undermining the power of governments and other powerful entities has benefits and drawbacks. Our thesis is that making mass surveillance and online censorship ineffective is a net good for humanity in the long term.
You are arguing that censorship is a net good in the much more specific context of disinformation campaigns on social media during war time. Yes, government censorship might be effective and proportional in that context. It could also backfire.
You are also arguing that the dynamics and algorithms of social media is the vector through which disinformation spreads. Wouldn't it then be more effective and proportional to target social media for regulation?
>> It sounds like you're arguing for censored populations to .. not circumvent censorship through technological means..
> Yes, in democratic countries..
What should people in undemocratic countries do?
> I believe that the exact same ads you have on the streets in the cities should be published by politicians or NGOs and not a business.
> .. I do think that political activism is still possible even when there is additional risk.
> On the other hand, I do know that vulnerable people (teens, minorities, sick, elderly) in my country get recruited by Russia en masses through messengers. I do know that Russia engages in psychological warfare through Telegram, Facebook and TikTok without governments able to do anything.
I agree that is a serious problem and I don't know how to solve it. I'm sorry.
> I do want for politicians to fight for my rights, but I don't want that from businesses to be honest.
Why not?
> I mean, activism is clearly a part of your business strategy.
From a cause-and-effect point of view it would be more correct to say that starting a business is a part of our activism strategy. My opinions on the proportionality of mass surveillance and government censorship were formed a decade before I started Mullvad. Running a business is hard work, and if I didn't believe in its mission I would move on to something easier.
> The more discussion you create around issues related to privacy and censorship the more users you'll have - that's why I call it performative. Mullvad's business depends on the performance of fighting for the rights at the same time as benefitting from the fight itself.
I see. I interpreted it as "for show" in the sense of not being genuine.
I am sorry, but I don't follow — are you saying that Chat Control is a solution to any of these problems?
It achieves the opposite. Undermining encryption under the pretext of "think of the children" won't end well. It only creates more national security risks.
Wow. I cannot fathom anyone thinking this, but also I am doubtful the EU pays for propaganda on HN so it is what it is I guess. After von der Leyen's corruption and the fast pace into totalitarianism against the will of the population nonetheless. Just wow.
Are you really convinced that the EU, which is not even a nation and is usually laughed away for being incapable of making any firm decision whatsoever, is on a faster track towards totalitarianism than the US has been since its last election?
I'm as pro european as they come, but I think the author didn't deserve a downvote.
If there is a moment when the EU could not afford to take hits to their popularity, it is now. And here we are, gifting free shots to anti-EU populists.
Measures such going dark and similar ones are wholly supported - and pushed - by police forces around europe, not by politicians. I do agree that the politician should grow a spine and trust computer scientists for one, since they're the ones making laws after all
No, trust the computer scientists on what can easily be circumvented by criminals while still allowing third parties to scan private conversations. But I do suspect a bit that this is only an intended side effect
Well, Putin did border agreements with China and gave them territory no so long ago.
I am sure "Putin is a foreign agent working against the interests of Russia and Russians (killing them by literal millions)" is not the response he waited to counter his narrative of "Putin defending poor Russia".
:-)
Christmas is a holiday of the family, especially if you reject the consumerist overtones. It's — for me — a lovely week of spending time together, eating too much, and watching bad old movies.
I really like everything about that atmosphere, so the McDonald's ad felt shitty, heartless, and cynical. Why bother making the holidays better for others, just come to McDo!
I chuckled because of the s/Russia/Putin/g nonsense everywhere. I'm not laughing at anyone's expense if they forcibly lose their home, no matter where and under which circumstances.
You see, millions are already killed in the biggest war in Europe since WW2 and it looks like this is just the prelude.
Russia is threatening to fight Europe as of yesterday, continue to increase weapon production and militarisation. It is obvious that it just cannot stop as its economy and social order is switching more and more to the war-time. China backs russia up and officially declaring that it cannot allow Russia to lose.
The alliance which was created specifically to stop this scenario is now being neutralised by US withdrawing from it.
And you still call it "Russia/Putin nonsense". Do you live somewhere where you feel isolated from all of this?
Please tell me so I can go there as well. Because at the place where I live - Russians drones are flying over important infrastructure mapping it out without government/military being able to stop it. Russians propaganda fills social media, and politicians are corrupted by russia without hiding it too much.
Also what about that "millions" number? Where did that come from? I can barely find any mentions of numbers exceeding 500.000 people being killed thus far.
Sorry, I meant killed and injured. I don't keep up with the numbers, but few years ago it was at least around half a million from both sides. I extrapolated it for last few years.
You misunderstand. I'm not against reporting about Russia. The oversimplification of reducing everything down to "Putin this, Putin that" is my issue. Imagine me saying everything the EU is doing is explicitly because of Ursel. It's stupid, ignorant and reminds me of Trump Derangement Syndrome which had a similar effect on reporting about US issues.
I live in Germany so I'm fucked either way. I'm also aware of NATO expansion until a point where Russia couldn't ignore it anymore. You think Russia will attack Europe, I think the West is keen on fighting a war against Russia. I don't subscribe to any of the narratives you presented, especially since I think it obvious that its the West that finds itself having to wage a war because their currencies, social order and demographics needing a reset. NATO being a defensive alliance is a joke.
Since we're unlikely to come closer to an understanding I'll refrain from going further.
> You think Russia will attack Europe, I think the West is keen on fighting a war against Russia.
And the way it was keen on fighting a war is (check notes) _increase economic ties to the point that the whole of Germany's economic growth was dependent on Russian' gas_? Or to reduce military spending year over the year? Or to stop conscription in all countries?
It is completely a wild take for me to hear that the west was keen to fight a war with nuclear power by the means of reducing its fighting abilities to almost zero while the other side militarises? Am I having some crazy dream?
Honest question: why don't you emigrate to Russia since you seem to admire it so much? They are specifically looking for people who 'share Russian values', and Germany is on the 'white list' - so acquiring citizenship should be really easy and you don't need to live in a country you apparently seem to hate.
This is the Russian way of putting it. Guess what, NATO doesn't "expand". Each and every NATO member had to apply for membership themselves, after a national decision to do so. Any guesses why all Russian neighbours want to be NATO members?
I didn't say you were. I live in a NATO member myself which is nowhere near Russia and yet keeps baiting Russia and using it as an easy scapegoat for its issues... Now and then it's true. Thankfully I haven't been accused of being a Russian bot for a while. :)
> The oversimplification of reducing everything down to "Putin this, Putin that" is my issue. Imagine me saying everything the EU is doing is explicitly because of Ursel. It's stupid, ignorant and reminds me of Trump Derangement Syndrome which had a similar effect on reporting about US issues.
Those oversimplifications are in fact also really at the core of the issues. Russia without Putin would be far less likely to have quagmired itself in this economy-wrecking show of technical and strategic incompetence. His navy is intimidated by a nation without active seamen! His invasion forces got stuck on the way in, for weeks!
And in the US, it has literally been proven career suicide, time and time again, for a GOP politician to buck the line, even a little, against that demented, narcissistic idiot. I can't believe the nation has not only created, but sustained, this freakish coopting of half the government - but it has. If Trump says he likes poop-flavored ice cream, GOP senators will line up for their brown-lipped photo ops. I guarantee it.
It's hard to make adequate satire of these two hellish clowns.
Who isn't a complete jester nowadays? Can you take anyone serious who has some impact and public presence? It's one big complete that most of us aren't in. Zelensky is a coke head, he's surrounded by proud fascists wearing their symbols while EU is talking of saving democracy by propping up a government that cancelled it's elections. Scholz stood next to Biden while he proclaimed that the US will end NS2. People get debanked for having wrong opinions but it's all meant to keep our freedoms. You can't take any of it seriously anymore.
Well, you mentioned living in Odessa in 2022 but I shouldn't have assumed your nationality based on that, sorry about that.
And yet you're the one doing all the name calling, not me. I'll ignore this thread from now on, you're obviously not able to have a reasonable exchange of opinions. Bye.
What about depressed people? What about stressed people? What about people with autism who overreact when spooked? What about people on the edge who didn't care about the consequences because of the life situation?
What about people who are convinced that police may kill them for mild violation as they saw that multiple times on the news and social media? The reaction to flee may be justified at the moment as it is life or death anyway, even if only in their heads.
There are a lot of "normal" people around who will act abnormally in a high stress situation.
Driving on public roads carries a responsibility to respond reasonably in all kinds of stressful situations. People incapable of handling a traffic stop should not be licensed.
> Driving on public roads carries a responsibility to respond reasonably in all kinds of stressful situations.
Yes.
> People incapable of handling a traffic stop should not be licensed.
Also yes. But both of those points apply to the (US) cops and they frequently fail on both points (the first amply demonstrated by how many police chases end up in crashes and/or deaths; the second by any one of thousands of videos showing where the cops needlessly escalate traffic stops.)
No they're not, people have irrational reactions to things all the time, especially under stress. Getting startled, panicking, and fleeing is definitely one of those.
People will confess to crimes they didn't commit if the police are persuasive enough, that's why such evidence is illegal.
Thank you for speaking to reality of situations that the majority of internet commenters never talk about. I think dang needs to put the HN member lock back on.
You know, some of us were already living then and it is not some distant event we have no knowledge of.
For example:
> Re: The soviet government did not want to evacuate the town of Pripyat
> Debunking: Legasov indicated the opposite. He said that the decision to evacuate was made quickly, even though the levels of radiation in the town were not considered to be dangerous.
WTF? The level of radiation was not considered to be dangerous when your reactor was blown open? Are you fucking kidding?
> Re: The government made an effort to conceal everything regarding the accident and what was happening.
> Legasov stated that this was not the case, and that information was not provided at the time because it didn't exist. The situation was very confusing, and information was scarce, coming from multiple conflicting sources and estimates, making it difficult to collect, filter, and access the correct information.
The accident happened on 26 April 1986, and on the 1st of May, _4 days later_ there was a celebration of Labour Day - a mandatory parade in Kyiv within just 100 km. And no-one knew about the disaster from the official sources. Only people with access to foreign radio knew about the disaster, others were happily marching with red flags on the streets breathing polluted air.
And so on, and so forth...
He claims that they had all the equipment ready and knew the actual levels, but at the same time were confused and information was scarce, and the level of radiation were not that bad - it this some type of propaganda for the dumb?
I agree there are some claims in this article that should be further scrutinized but it's true that the levels of radiation were not as high as one might assume. The direction of the wind during and immediately following the disaster slowed the spread of radioactive material over Pripyat (this is also why southern Belarus was hit so hard). The prevailing winds in that region are north east and the Chernobyl power plant was on the north side of the city. By the time of the May day parade the winds had shifted such that Kiev was downwind from Chernobyl.
The KGB did their best to contain information about the disaster in general and the USSR wanted the May day parade to go on as-planned to make it look like things were fine. Even those with enough power or connections to be aware of the danger were pressured to participate. The May day parade was later often referred to in infamy by the Ukrainian independence movement following the disaster.
Most of my information comes from what I remember of reading "Midnight in Chernobyl" and "Chernobyl the History of a Nuclear Disaster"
I think too often these historical "debunking" exercises are really just exercises in overzealously uncharitable interpretation. Some of the distinctions drawn are asinine especially in the context of a dramatic presentation. And some are even importantly wrong, as you've now pointed out which I wouldn't have thought of on a skim-by reading.
Just like we have functional literacy and information literacy, there should be such a thing as Debunking Literacy. Are you actually debunking or just uncharitably interpreting?
If we dismiss the possibility that the post itself is a part of Russian propaganda to whitewash the soviet legacy (which they are engaging now at scale), then the next best explanation is that the author lacks the context of living in the USSR to correctly interpret the recordings.
In USSR everyone lied. Telling anything against the party will put you and your family in grave danger - it is basically a suicide. There were no free press, no activism, and all information was filtered by the party with complicated process of deciding what should be published and when and who gets punished for what.
People in the west have no understanding what it means to live all your life in such conditions so they try to interpret people as if it happened in their country.
It can be that the person was trying to make amends with the party to ease the social ostracization for his family, friends or colleagues. It doesn't mean the person is telling the truth at all, it means that he show loyalty to the party line by telling that the system was efficient and all his higher-ups were doing the best job.
Wholeheartedly agree, this is good analysis. I think there's a strong tankie tradition online and it's rather distinct in how anti intellectual it is, and would not write off the possibility of apologetics, but I completely agree that if true it's next explained by an institutionally fundamental culture of fear.
His family was hosting a stranger in their house for the night in 1921. Stranger said he has nowhere to go, so they allowed him to stay in the room with Leontovych himself.
The stranger ended up being a Russia undercover checkist who killed Leontovych and robbed his family. [0]
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Leontovych#Death
reply