9 ms·

Think what's going on in Iran is very sad, but from an outsider America has become one mouthpiece, rarely do I see dissenting voices in the media, that is its a

Think what's going on in Iran is very sad, but from an outsider America has become one mouthpiece, rarely do I see dissenting voices in the media, that is its always Iran/China bad and at the same time they Kidnap a foreign leader and its all wow look how great we are. does feel its back to might is right, and the last 80 years of relative peaceful times is sunsetting. you may ask what has the above goto do with a tech article on Iran blocking the internet, its basically just how its written feels alot like propaganda (not saying the content is invalid) that is, oh the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours, personally didn't have it for much of my childhood, the above is not to diminish the other sad loss of life which is obviously terrible just feels like even tech articles have become partisan.

heraldgeezer 8mo ago
>that is its always Iran/China bad I mean, yes? They are. Cold war never ended. You are on the wests side or you are not. If you live in the west I hope you appreciate it. The people of Iran are protesting due to horrible economics and infrastructure of the country. They dont even have water anymore. Yes, some nations are better to live in than others.
nailer 8mo ago
> the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours ...during mass violence against the population.
mancerayder 8mo ago
Iran controls a string of proxies in Lebanon, Yemen and other places. Are you sure you're not forgetting that piece? When you write that we had 80 years of relatively peaceful times, you're glossing over that fact.
- Lamad1234 8mo ago
  [dead]
- dpe82 8mo ago
  We haven't had a major conflict in 80 years. Little skirmishes all over the place, sure, but we've forgotten that significant wars between major powers used to be both terrible for everyone involved and also common. Our grandparents after WW2 decided to go a different path and created a largely rules- and trade- based international order that has largely kept the peace. We don't realize how good we've had it.
- mlsu 8mo ago
  Sixty million people died in WW2. Sixty million.
  - mancerayder 8mo ago
    Absolutely, there's been no major conflict like this since WW2. The strategy shifted to proxy controlled damage in places not US, not Russia, not China, but the weaker states where there was some incentive for control (resources, geography, political alliance, etc). While not a big state (not since centuries), Iran was a proxy controller with the capacity to cause mayhem.
epistasis 8mo ago
When thinking about an entire country, "good/bad" doesn't make sense as a category. In Iran, the people are protesting and holy hell are there a ton of people risking their lives for the chance for a better life with less oppression, without hyperinflation, with some sort of voice in their own governance. The ruling class can not be conflated with the populace. The populace can not be conflated with the populace for that matter, there's no "one" thing even under a shared culture. This is also true in the US, you can't conflate the ruling class with the people in the streets ringing bells and blowing horns and risking their lives and freedom against a tyrannical government seeking to arrest millions of people and deport some of them. Nothing is completely free of politics, much less the existence of the Internet, and it's incredibly important to realize the impact that technology has on the fabric of society. > oh the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours, This is not even remotely close to the meaning or impact of the site that's linked. It's about the dignity of life, the gunning down of thousands of people by their government, and the governments attempts to continue oppression by hiding their actions behind a veil. Your comment viewed in its most positive light is crass, more realistically is heartless and cruel. My guess: you're commenting on the US from a Russified country, or from China? That's the only perspective on the world that I can imagine generating your statements, and if I'm wrong I'd love to know.
- Huntsecker 8mo ago
  no, actually not, maybe a country that isnt very pro America given you're threatening to invade to take ownership of Greenland. But again in my post, the actual loss of life etc is very sad and shouldn't happen, but my point was more tech was one area where politics were left at the door and maybe I'm old but its sad I guess to see it here too.
  - epistasis 8mo ago
    Aha, that country also makes sense, and is an understandable response too. The US is in very deep trouble internationally. We in the US have been swimming against this madness for so long that it's almost refreshing to see somebody have an appropriate response. A good 1/3 of the country in the US is stark-raving mad and addicted to disinformation and forcing it on others. I guess I've never seen tech as disconnected at all from politics, even on HN, and perhaps especially on HN, as the intersection of tech and politics has been a discussion point as long as I can remember. Even classic programmer sci-fi, like Snowcrash and Cryptonomicon, is highly political, and largely about the political effects of technology on society.
epolanski 8mo ago
People don't do politics anymore, they get their priorities the other way around (geopolitics before the politics of their own house, workplace or city), and the little they do is heavily misplaced (online instead of physically demonstrating). On top of that add the huge boom of data in politics. No politician anymore has programs or language aiming at representing most of the voters, but it only focuses to get 50%+1, which in practice means that most politicians aim for the majority of the swing voters.
- tdeck 8mo ago
  Is politics that thing where I vote every 2-4 years and maybe volunteer for the DNC or send some money to a presidential candidate, and spend thousands of hours passively consuming election and news content? That's what I learned growing up but it doesn't seem to be working. :shrug: /s
xorvoid 8mo ago
"oh the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours, personally didn't have it for much of my childhood" I understand what you're trying to say and I agree with that, but this is actually different. This is not an inconvenience as much a state censorship. It's the state literally disallowing people talking to each other. It's Orwellian: "we don't like what you're talking about, so we're going to make you completely unable to" It's not the 80s or 90s anymore. The internet is rhe global backbone of how people communicate with each other. Shutting down access is a clear action of censorship and oppression.
- mathisfun123 8mo ago
  > This is not an inconvenience as much a state censorship To wit: notice how few pictures we're seeing from there (a few were trickling in before the crackdown).
- drysine 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - xorvoid 8mo ago
    I didn't miss that and I'm not sure what argument you're making. It sounds like you're trying to say that state censorship is conditional, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to make your case.
    - drysine 8mo ago
      [flagged]
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8mo ago
        > right now a superpower is set on overthrowing the government [of Iran] Okay, sure. > and internet shutdown is perfectly justified This doesn't seem to obviously follow. Can you explain the justification?
drc500free 8mo ago
They cut the internet so they could machine gun people, not stop them from ordering DoorDash.
- Lamad1234 8mo ago
  [dead]
- Huntsecker 8mo ago
  Not sure they do tbh, I think they would machine gun them even with internet, it's more about stopping them from organising.
  - filoleg 8mo ago
    > I think they would machine gun them even with internet, it's more about stopping them from organising. Yes, but cutting off internet access to the entire country typically makes machine gunning much more efficient (due to organizing being made much more difficult for the people) and much less costly in terms of the global outcry and reputation.
- GordonS 8mo ago
  Where is your evidence of that?
  - kelvinjps10 8mo ago
    They did just after the protest started, and there is no evidence that's actually happening but it's kind of the point since we are not receiving information from Iran since the government blocked them out from the internet
    - GordonS 8mo ago
      There are alternative explanations. For example, foreign agents may have been using Starlink, and the security services may have used the shutdown to find the Starlink terminals.
bbor 8mo ago
that is its always Iran/China bad and at the same time they Kidnap a foreign leader and its all wow look how great we are. I mean... I guess it depends on what you consider "the media"? I certainly don't consume any media that reacted with anything but shock and horror. With CBS under attack I suppose that's fragile, but I think it's important to appreciate the freedoms we do still have. When people say "all the media in AUTHORITARIAN_STATE supports the federal government on IMPORTANT_THING", they don't mean "a plurality of popular TV networks" -- they mean all. oh the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours, personally didn't have it for much of my childhood ...I think you're coming from a good place, but you're failing to grasp the seriousness of a nation state shutting down telecommunications. Besides the immense power it shows, it also implies a level of desperation and/or severity-of-intent. It's very, very different than a nation losing access to the internet because of technical issues (or, in your case, because it wasn't invented/popularized yet).
iowemoretohim 8mo ago
> Think what's going on in Iran is very sad, but > the above is not to diminish the other sad loss of life That's a lot of caveats.
rootusrootus 8mo ago
> rarely do I see dissenting voices in the media, that is its always Iran/China bad and at the same time they Kidnap a foreign leader and its all wow look how great we are. You are not looking too hard at all. There are lots of dissenting opinions, in fact I'd wager that if you excluded official government mouthpieces, the lion's share of opinion (both private individuals as well as established media) is trending to open criticality of the US government's choices. > how its written feels alot like propaganda I almost feel bad for the established old school media companies. One side says they are spewing propaganda, the other side says they're ignoring it altogether. Both cannot be simultaneously true.
rs999gti 8mo ago
> but from an outsider America has become one mouthpiece Really? As a naturalized American I see diversity in the USA's media. Do you have an example? From what I see, there are two big voices in the media politically. > rarely do I see dissenting voices in the media Again, we need an example. I see the official line from the current party in power, and the counter arguements from the mainstream media as a whole. The current party only has a media output from very few mainstream sources.
- Hikikomori 8mo ago
  See manufacturing consent.
jaredklewis 8mo ago
Yes, the US is not the center of the universe and there’s lots of room for different perspectives, but there is nothing good that can be said about the regime in Iran. China, for sure there a lot of good that can be said about the Chinese government. Of course China’s human rights abuses have to be recognized, but we should also recognize the good things like economic and technological development. And I’m sympathetic to Taiwanese independence, but China’s own position should also be give a fair shake. Pretty much all governments, including the US, are a mix of good and bad. But name one redeeming point of the regime in Iran. Why have any sympathy for the regime at all?
- drysine 8mo ago
  >But name one redeeming point of the regime in Iran. Why have any sympathy for the regime at all? They helped Russia, for one thing.
  - Sabinus 8mo ago
    The request was for a redeeming quality, not a damning one.
    - drysine 8mo ago
      Exactly
  - jaredklewis 8mo ago
    Want to be more specific about your argument? I’d consider a government good if it is serves the people of that country. “Iran murders and tortures it citizens by the thousands, and impoverishes them by the millions through widespread corruption, but they sold some drones to Russia, so that’s nice.” Is that your argument?
wagwang 8mo ago
lol we are here because 75 years ago in the era of peace and tranquility, CIA deposed the democratically elected secular leader of iran
- Aloisius 8mo ago
  Iran's elections 75 years ago were about as democratic as North Korea's. They were just theater. Everyone was involved in rigging, candidates, the monarchy, foreign nations, etc., Mosaddegh included. And peace and tranquility? Iran was in economic chaos before the PM was dismissed in 1953. They were printing money to pay salaries because the British refused to transport their oil, cutting off their main source of income.
  - za3faran 8mo ago
    When you look at it, you do notice how much of what is happening in that region was due to western (particularly British) intervention and colonialism, and continues to this day.
    - tim333 8mo ago
      If you look at the history on Wikipedia there have been invasions and the like going back way before the Brits got in there. Eg. >the clash between the kingdoms of Aksum and Himyar in 525 displayed a higher power struggle between Byzantium and Persia for control of the Red Sea trade. Territorial wars soon became common... etc. And on likewise for over a thousand years.
  - wagwang 8mo ago
    What is your point again? Why are you listing iranian domestic problems when we are talking about foreign policy. There are lots of failing countries all around the world and most of them don't hate America because the CIA didnt coup their popular leader.
    - Aloisius 8mo ago
      The PM wasn't democratically elected. Iran wasn't in era of peace and tranquility 75 years ago. The PM was not popular in 1953 after his promise of prosperity after seizing British oil fields not only failed to materialize, but instead led to the oil industry grinding to a halt; his failed half-hearted land reforms pissed off pretty much everyone; he jailed his political enemies; and was ruling Iran as a dictator. It's unfortunate that Iran's propaganda around Mossadegh has been so effective at rewriting history, but people just like simplistic stories about good vs. evil.
armchairhacker 8mo ago
> from an outsider America has become one mouthpiece, rarely do I see dissenting voices in the media You don't clearly see America, there are at least two big mouthpieces. While I've never heard anyone praise the Iranian or Venezuelan government, I've heard many protest US intervention. > how its written feels alot like propaganda (not saying the content is invalid) I agree it sounds like propaganda. But in this case I think it's fair, the situation is almost black and white. > the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours...not to diminish the other sad loss of life Maybe they should've emphasized: the loss of life (and general restriction on daily living, offline) is the main problem, no internet for 118 hours is a symptom. > even tech articles have become partisan True. But again, this case (criticizing the Iranian regime) is so close to clear-cut black and white, it shouldn't even be partisan.
- hex4def6 8mo ago
  If you're talking about Chavez, I'd disagree quite strongly. But even Maduro had his western-based supporters, at least in the early years; for example this op-ed in the Guardian: "Although there are abuses of power and problems with the rule of law in Venezuela – as there are throughout the hemisphere – it is far from the authoritarian state that most consumers of western media are led to believe. Opposition leaders currently aim to topple the democratically elected government – their stated goal – by portraying it as a repressive dictatorship that is cracking down on peaceful protest. This is a standard "regime change" strategy, which often includes violent demonstrations in order to provoke state violence." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/04/venezuela-protests-not-ukraine-class-sturggle https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/04/venezu...
  - epistasis 8mo ago
    > by portraying it as a repressive dictatorship that is cracking down on peaceful protest. This is a standard "regime change" strategy, which often includes violent demonstrations in order to provoke state violence." Side note: The self contradiction in adjacent sentences is so funny to me! It says a lot about the lack of mental coherency of the author and of the intended audience. But I'm not 100% sure I follow your point, this is an editorial from way back in 2014, from a UK site not a US site. Though this could be published in the Guardian, I don't think a supporter of Maduro's government would get any TV time. Search long enough and you will find supporters and detractors of all governments in the US, and openly doing it, because that's what the US's principles are supposed to allow. I remember in SF a political group which is half-mainstream, the DSA, starting a Maoist reading group, which caused a local uproar. That's particularly notable in SF, a city that has a very large Chinese population, with many of the families in SF to flee Mao himself! The original assertion was that the US had one voice, without any opposition, in its media. While the viewpoints that make it into the mainstream media are somewhat narrow, you can find nearly every viewpoint somewhere on the Internet in the US.
TheMagicHorsey 8mo ago
Have you been on the Internet as an adult ever? Have you been on X? What about Facebook? America is "one mouthpiece"? This is one of the most puzzling takes I've ever seen. Americans literally post 10K articles a day about how bad the administration is and all the bad that will result from going to Venezuela ... and multiply that for literally every other thing the govt does. There isn't one thing that happens that doesn't have hundreds of posts online and in papers explaining why America is so evil for doing it. You have no idea what you are talking about. Have you sampled the media landscape in Tehran or Beijing? I have sampled both ... FROM those locations. Its night and day. Even the media landscape in your typical Western Alliance country (Singapore, Japan, South Korea, UK ... etc.) cannot come close to what you see in America.
lr4444lr 8mo ago
"China bad"? Do you have any idea how much Chinese economic leverage has caused Hollywood to censor against CCCP criticism? As for Iran, we have a literal embargo, so it's not quite the same.
FitchApps 8mo ago
The problem with other freedom-loving nations, the EU, etc is that they're a bunch of cowards and I feel like America is the only place that can stand up to the regimes like Iran/China. Who else if not US?
- jemmyw 8mo ago
  That's probably quite unfair. The EU nations don't have huge militaries that allow them to project force around the world. And they used to. They didn't just become cowards after WWII. Europe was reshaped by wars, and by American policy, and then yes they sat on their laurels for too long after the cold war when it came to defense spending. Nobody has stood up against China really. Nearly the whole world, including the US, went along with the one China policy for the sake of money.
  - tim333 8mo ago
    The US tried in the Korean war but they were hard work to fight.
    - jemmyw 8mo ago
      wasn't that more because at that point the US public just weren't interested in carrying on?
- tim333 8mo ago
  I kind of agree with you but it's more complicated with the UK as Iran used to have a democratic government but in 1953 it was >...overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the United States (CIA) and the United Kingdom (MI6). A key motive was to protect British oil interests in Iran...(wikipedia) Not our finest hour really.
Ethee 8mo ago
>does feel its back to might is right, and the last 80 years of relative peaceful times is sunsetting. Depending on your perspective, 'might is right' never changed. The US has forced its policies on other nations through quiet force for a long time. I think the only thing that's changed is that Trump wants to say the quiet part out loud now which makes it way easier to push back on. Combine that with the fact that Trump has 0 political ambitions outside of just being in power and it becomes very easy to just ignore what you hear coming from the top. Often it clearly has no thought put behind it, seems vindictive in nature, and is forgotten the next day, like a child's tantrum. To circle back a little, now that the US in such a passive state due to this, a lot of other countries feel safer to push their influence on the world because they see no repercussions for what others are doing.
EbbiURBiSharaf 8mo ago
> oh the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours, personally didn't have it for much of my childhood This is probably the most stupid thing I have ever read on hackernews. Were you and family and friends and heighbors being gunned down by your own military during those days? They cut communication systems for 3 reasons: 1 - So the world outside doesn't get to see the scale of their crimes against humanity. 2 - So the rest of Iranian nation doesn't get to see how "their government" [sic, actually a terrorist cult with deep Arab tendecies] is treating their fellow Iranians, lest they too pour into streets. 3 - So their deeply compromised cadres don't leave tracks for Israel to give them the Nasrullah treatment. > the above is not to diminish the other sad loss of life You are sad. Nothing "sad" about the valiant Iranian Nation fighting for freedom. Now go play with your whatever ...
seanmcdirmid 8mo ago
> that is its always Iran/China bad and at the same time they Kidnap a foreign leader and its all wow look how great we are. If you think American news is weird, you should try reading Chinese news. English ones like China Daily or globaltimes.cn, I would read it a lot when I was in China since American news sources were blocked. It has gotten better since 2002, but is still pretty bizarre in how they frame conflicts. Forget CNN-level bias, they have FoxNews-level bias in how they do the news.
_DeadFred_ 8mo ago
Why is the top comment always this sort of concern troll derailing the topic? It seems intentional at this point to divert discussion.
chao- 8mo ago
>rarely do I see dissenting voices in the media...at the same time they Kidnap a foreign leader and its all wow look how great we are. I'm not sure if you meant to imply that there was a uniform media response of "look how great we are" vis-a-vis the abduction of Maduro? If you did, I have to disagree. A significant amount of US media time was dedicated to how not-great this was. The US media is full of propaganda. I am not disputing that. All I am saying is that the response to the Maduro abduction was not a uniform "This is great!"
js4ever 8mo ago
WTF, it's like if you don't understand why internet was blocked there or what is happening right now in Iran. Or like if you are a propagandist for IRCG
laurels-marts 8mo ago
Government cutting internet access to 90m ppl while killing protesters in the streets and “growing up without internet” is not even remotely comparable lmao.
tim333 8mo ago
>back to might is right Quite a lot of recent fighting is against that. Russia tried the might is right thing to take over Ukraine but is being fought back by an assortment of democracies. Maduro was looking like dictator for life backed by Russia and Cuba but got taken out partly due to years of protest by Venezuelans. Syria was also a Russian backed dictator overthrown by the locals. Iran looks similar - we'll have to see how it works out. Invading Greenland wouldn't be good. One of the weaknesses of the post WW2 peace is there was limited support for democracy. I don't know if that could change a bit these days?

heraldgeezer 8mo ago

>that is its always Iran/China bad I mean, yes? They are. Cold war never ended. You are on the wests side or you are not. If you live in the west I hope you appreciate it. The people of Iran are protesting due to horrible economics and infrastructure of the country. They dont even have water anymore. Yes, some nations are better to live in than others.

nailer 8mo ago

> the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours ...during mass violence against the population.

mancerayder 8mo ago

Iran controls a string of proxies in Lebanon, Yemen and other places. Are you sure you're not forgetting that piece? When you write that we had 80 years of relatively peaceful times, you're glossing over that fact.

Lamad1234 8mo ago
[dead]
dpe82 8mo ago
We haven't had a major conflict in 80 years. Little skirmishes all over the place, sure, but we've forgotten that significant wars between major powers used to be both terrible for everyone involved and also common. Our grandparents after WW2 decided to go a different path and created a largely rules- and trade- based international order that has largely kept the peace. We don't realize how good we've had it.
mlsu 8mo ago
Sixty million people died in WW2. Sixty million.
- mancerayder 8mo ago
  Absolutely, there's been no major conflict like this since WW2. The strategy shifted to proxy controlled damage in places not US, not Russia, not China, but the weaker states where there was some incentive for control (resources, geography, political alliance, etc). While not a big state (not since centuries), Iran was a proxy controller with the capacity to cause mayhem.

epistasis 8mo ago

When thinking about an entire country, "good/bad" doesn't make sense as a category. In Iran, the people are protesting and holy hell are there a ton of people risking their lives for the chance for a better life with less oppression, without hyperinflation, with some sort of voice in their own governance. The ruling class can not be conflated with the populace. The populace can not be conflated with the populace for that matter, there's no "one" thing even under a shared culture. This is also true in the US, you can't conflate the ruling class with the people in the streets ringing bells and blowing horns and risking their lives and freedom against a tyrannical government seeking to arrest millions of people and deport some of them. Nothing is completely free of politics, much less the existence of the Internet, and it's incredibly important to realize the impact that technology has on the fabric of society. > oh the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours, This is not even remotely close to the meaning or impact of the site that's linked. It's about the dignity of life, the gunning down of thousands of people by their government, and the governments attempts to continue oppression by hiding their actions behind a veil. Your comment viewed in its most positive light is crass, more realistically is heartless and cruel. My guess: you're commenting on the US from a Russified country, or from China? That's the only perspective on the world that I can imagine generating your statements, and if I'm wrong I'd love to know.

Huntsecker 8mo ago
no, actually not, maybe a country that isnt very pro America given you're threatening to invade to take ownership of Greenland. But again in my post, the actual loss of life etc is very sad and shouldn't happen, but my point was more tech was one area where politics were left at the door and maybe I'm old but its sad I guess to see it here too.
- epistasis 8mo ago
  Aha, that country also makes sense, and is an understandable response too. The US is in very deep trouble internationally. We in the US have been swimming against this madness for so long that it's almost refreshing to see somebody have an appropriate response. A good 1/3 of the country in the US is stark-raving mad and addicted to disinformation and forcing it on others. I guess I've never seen tech as disconnected at all from politics, even on HN, and perhaps especially on HN, as the intersection of tech and politics has been a discussion point as long as I can remember. Even classic programmer sci-fi, like Snowcrash and Cryptonomicon, is highly political, and largely about the political effects of technology on society.

epolanski 8mo ago

People don't do politics anymore, they get their priorities the other way around (geopolitics before the politics of their own house, workplace or city), and the little they do is heavily misplaced (online instead of physically demonstrating). On top of that add the huge boom of data in politics. No politician anymore has programs or language aiming at representing most of the voters, but it only focuses to get 50%+1, which in practice means that most politicians aim for the majority of the swing voters.

tdeck 8mo ago
Is politics that thing where I vote every 2-4 years and maybe volunteer for the DNC or send some money to a presidential candidate, and spend thousands of hours passively consuming election and news content? That's what I learned growing up but it doesn't seem to be working. :shrug: /s

xorvoid 8mo ago

"oh the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours, personally didn't have it for much of my childhood" I understand what you're trying to say and I agree with that, but this is actually different. This is not an inconvenience as much a state censorship. It's the state literally disallowing people talking to each other. It's Orwellian: "we don't like what you're talking about, so we're going to make you completely unable to" It's not the 80s or 90s anymore. The internet is rhe global backbone of how people communicate with each other. Shutting down access is a clear action of censorship and oppression.

mathisfun123 8mo ago
> This is not an inconvenience as much a state censorship To wit: notice how few pictures we're seeing from there (a few were trickling in before the crackdown).
drysine 8mo ago
[flagged]
- xorvoid 8mo ago
  I didn't miss that and I'm not sure what argument you're making. It sounds like you're trying to say that state censorship is conditional, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to make your case.
  - drysine 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8mo ago
      > right now a superpower is set on overthrowing the government [of Iran] Okay, sure. > and internet shutdown is perfectly justified This doesn't seem to obviously follow. Can you explain the justification?

drc500free 8mo ago

They cut the internet so they could machine gun people, not stop them from ordering DoorDash.

Lamad1234 8mo ago
[dead]
Huntsecker 8mo ago
Not sure they do tbh, I think they would machine gun them even with internet, it's more about stopping them from organising.
- filoleg 8mo ago
  > I think they would machine gun them even with internet, it's more about stopping them from organising. Yes, but cutting off internet access to the entire country typically makes machine gunning much more efficient (due to organizing being made much more difficult for the people) and much less costly in terms of the global outcry and reputation.
GordonS 8mo ago
Where is your evidence of that?
- kelvinjps10 8mo ago
  They did just after the protest started, and there is no evidence that's actually happening but it's kind of the point since we are not receiving information from Iran since the government blocked them out from the internet
  - GordonS 8mo ago
    There are alternative explanations. For example, foreign agents may have been using Starlink, and the security services may have used the shutdown to find the Starlink terminals.

bbor 8mo ago

that is its always Iran/China bad and at the same time they Kidnap a foreign leader and its all wow look how great we are. I mean... I guess it depends on what you consider "the media"? I certainly don't consume any media that reacted with anything but shock and horror. With CBS under attack I suppose that's fragile, but I think it's important to appreciate the freedoms we do still have. When people say "all the media in AUTHORITARIAN_STATE supports the federal government on IMPORTANT_THING", they don't mean "a plurality of popular TV networks" -- they mean all. oh the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours, personally didn't have it for much of my childhood ...I think you're coming from a good place, but you're failing to grasp the seriousness of a nation state shutting down telecommunications. Besides the immense power it shows, it also implies a level of desperation and/or severity-of-intent. It's very, very different than a nation losing access to the internet because of technical issues (or, in your case, because it wasn't invented/popularized yet).

iowemoretohim 8mo ago

> Think what's going on in Iran is very sad, but > the above is not to diminish the other sad loss of life That's a lot of caveats.

rootusrootus 8mo ago

> rarely do I see dissenting voices in the media, that is its always Iran/China bad and at the same time they Kidnap a foreign leader and its all wow look how great we are. You are not looking too hard at all. There are lots of dissenting opinions, in fact I'd wager that if you excluded official government mouthpieces, the lion's share of opinion (both private individuals as well as established media) is trending to open criticality of the US government's choices. > how its written feels alot like propaganda I almost feel bad for the established old school media companies. One side says they are spewing propaganda, the other side says they're ignoring it altogether. Both cannot be simultaneously true.

rs999gti 8mo ago

> but from an outsider America has become one mouthpiece Really? As a naturalized American I see diversity in the USA's media. Do you have an example? From what I see, there are two big voices in the media politically. > rarely do I see dissenting voices in the media Again, we need an example. I see the official line from the current party in power, and the counter arguements from the mainstream media as a whole. The current party only has a media output from very few mainstream sources.

Hikikomori 8mo ago
See manufacturing consent.

jaredklewis 8mo ago

Yes, the US is not the center of the universe and there’s lots of room for different perspectives, but there is nothing good that can be said about the regime in Iran. China, for sure there a lot of good that can be said about the Chinese government. Of course China’s human rights abuses have to be recognized, but we should also recognize the good things like economic and technological development. And I’m sympathetic to Taiwanese independence, but China’s own position should also be give a fair shake. Pretty much all governments, including the US, are a mix of good and bad. But name one redeeming point of the regime in Iran. Why have any sympathy for the regime at all?

drysine 8mo ago
>But name one redeeming point of the regime in Iran. Why have any sympathy for the regime at all? They helped Russia, for one thing.
- Sabinus 8mo ago
  The request was for a redeeming quality, not a damning one.
  - drysine 8mo ago
    Exactly
- jaredklewis 8mo ago
  Want to be more specific about your argument? I’d consider a government good if it is serves the people of that country. “Iran murders and tortures it citizens by the thousands, and impoverishes them by the millions through widespread corruption, but they sold some drones to Russia, so that’s nice.” Is that your argument?

wagwang 8mo ago

lol we are here because 75 years ago in the era of peace and tranquility, CIA deposed the democratically elected secular leader of iran

Aloisius 8mo ago
Iran's elections 75 years ago were about as democratic as North Korea's. They were just theater. Everyone was involved in rigging, candidates, the monarchy, foreign nations, etc., Mosaddegh included. And peace and tranquility? Iran was in economic chaos before the PM was dismissed in 1953. They were printing money to pay salaries because the British refused to transport their oil, cutting off their main source of income.
- za3faran 8mo ago
  When you look at it, you do notice how much of what is happening in that region was due to western (particularly British) intervention and colonialism, and continues to this day.
  - tim333 8mo ago
    If you look at the history on Wikipedia there have been invasions and the like going back way before the Brits got in there. Eg. >the clash between the kingdoms of Aksum and Himyar in 525 displayed a higher power struggle between Byzantium and Persia for control of the Red Sea trade. Territorial wars soon became common... etc. And on likewise for over a thousand years.
- wagwang 8mo ago
  What is your point again? Why are you listing iranian domestic problems when we are talking about foreign policy. There are lots of failing countries all around the world and most of them don't hate America because the CIA didnt coup their popular leader.
  - Aloisius 8mo ago
    The PM wasn't democratically elected. Iran wasn't in era of peace and tranquility 75 years ago. The PM was not popular in 1953 after his promise of prosperity after seizing British oil fields not only failed to materialize, but instead led to the oil industry grinding to a halt; his failed half-hearted land reforms pissed off pretty much everyone; he jailed his political enemies; and was ruling Iran as a dictator. It's unfortunate that Iran's propaganda around Mossadegh has been so effective at rewriting history, but people just like simplistic stories about good vs. evil.

armchairhacker 8mo ago

> from an outsider America has become one mouthpiece, rarely do I see dissenting voices in the media You don't clearly see America, there are at least two big mouthpieces. While I've never heard anyone praise the Iranian or Venezuelan government, I've heard many protest US intervention. > how its written feels alot like propaganda (not saying the content is invalid) I agree it sounds like propaganda. But in this case I think it's fair, the situation is almost black and white. > the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours...not to diminish the other sad loss of life Maybe they should've emphasized: the loss of life (and general restriction on daily living, offline) is the main problem, no internet for 118 hours is a symptom. > even tech articles have become partisan True. But again, this case (criticizing the Iranian regime) is so close to clear-cut black and white, it shouldn't even be partisan.

hex4def6 8mo ago
If you're talking about Chavez, I'd disagree quite strongly. But even Maduro had his western-based supporters, at least in the early years; for example this op-ed in the Guardian: "Although there are abuses of power and problems with the rule of law in Venezuela – as there are throughout the hemisphere – it is far from the authoritarian state that most consumers of western media are led to believe. Opposition leaders currently aim to topple the democratically elected government – their stated goal – by portraying it as a repressive dictatorship that is cracking down on peaceful protest. This is a standard "regime change" strategy, which often includes violent demonstrations in order to provoke state violence." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/04/venezuela-protests-not-ukraine-class-sturggle https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/04/venezu...
- epistasis 8mo ago
  > by portraying it as a repressive dictatorship that is cracking down on peaceful protest. This is a standard "regime change" strategy, which often includes violent demonstrations in order to provoke state violence." Side note: The self contradiction in adjacent sentences is so funny to me! It says a lot about the lack of mental coherency of the author and of the intended audience. But I'm not 100% sure I follow your point, this is an editorial from way back in 2014, from a UK site not a US site. Though this could be published in the Guardian, I don't think a supporter of Maduro's government would get any TV time. Search long enough and you will find supporters and detractors of all governments in the US, and openly doing it, because that's what the US's principles are supposed to allow. I remember in SF a political group which is half-mainstream, the DSA, starting a Maoist reading group, which caused a local uproar. That's particularly notable in SF, a city that has a very large Chinese population, with many of the families in SF to flee Mao himself! The original assertion was that the US had one voice, without any opposition, in its media. While the viewpoints that make it into the mainstream media are somewhat narrow, you can find nearly every viewpoint somewhere on the Internet in the US.

TheMagicHorsey 8mo ago

Have you been on the Internet as an adult ever? Have you been on X? What about Facebook? America is "one mouthpiece"? This is one of the most puzzling takes I've ever seen. Americans literally post 10K articles a day about how bad the administration is and all the bad that will result from going to Venezuela ... and multiply that for literally every other thing the govt does. There isn't one thing that happens that doesn't have hundreds of posts online and in papers explaining why America is so evil for doing it. You have no idea what you are talking about. Have you sampled the media landscape in Tehran or Beijing? I have sampled both ... FROM those locations. Its night and day. Even the media landscape in your typical Western Alliance country (Singapore, Japan, South Korea, UK ... etc.) cannot come close to what you see in America.

lr4444lr 8mo ago

"China bad"? Do you have any idea how much Chinese economic leverage has caused Hollywood to censor against CCCP criticism? As for Iran, we have a literal embargo, so it's not quite the same.

FitchApps 8mo ago

The problem with other freedom-loving nations, the EU, etc is that they're a bunch of cowards and I feel like America is the only place that can stand up to the regimes like Iran/China. Who else if not US?

jemmyw 8mo ago
That's probably quite unfair. The EU nations don't have huge militaries that allow them to project force around the world. And they used to. They didn't just become cowards after WWII. Europe was reshaped by wars, and by American policy, and then yes they sat on their laurels for too long after the cold war when it came to defense spending. Nobody has stood up against China really. Nearly the whole world, including the US, went along with the one China policy for the sake of money.
- tim333 8mo ago
  The US tried in the Korean war but they were hard work to fight.
  - jemmyw 8mo ago
    wasn't that more because at that point the US public just weren't interested in carrying on?
tim333 8mo ago
I kind of agree with you but it's more complicated with the UK as Iran used to have a democratic government but in 1953 it was >...overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the United States (CIA) and the United Kingdom (MI6). A key motive was to protect British oil interests in Iran...(wikipedia) Not our finest hour really.

Ethee 8mo ago

>does feel its back to might is right, and the last 80 years of relative peaceful times is sunsetting. Depending on your perspective, 'might is right' never changed. The US has forced its policies on other nations through quiet force for a long time. I think the only thing that's changed is that Trump wants to say the quiet part out loud now which makes it way easier to push back on. Combine that with the fact that Trump has 0 political ambitions outside of just being in power and it becomes very easy to just ignore what you hear coming from the top. Often it clearly has no thought put behind it, seems vindictive in nature, and is forgotten the next day, like a child's tantrum. To circle back a little, now that the US in such a passive state due to this, a lot of other countries feel safer to push their influence on the world because they see no repercussions for what others are doing.

EbbiURBiSharaf 8mo ago

> oh the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours, personally didn't have it for much of my childhood This is probably the most stupid thing I have ever read on hackernews. Were you and family and friends and heighbors being gunned down by your own military during those days? They cut communication systems for 3 reasons: 1 - So the world outside doesn't get to see the scale of their crimes against humanity. 2 - So the rest of Iranian nation doesn't get to see how "their government" [sic, actually a terrorist cult with deep Arab tendecies] is treating their fellow Iranians, lest they too pour into streets. 3 - So their deeply compromised cadres don't leave tracks for Israel to give them the Nasrullah treatment. > the above is not to diminish the other sad loss of life You are sad. Nothing "sad" about the valiant Iranian Nation fighting for freedom. Now go play with your whatever ...

seanmcdirmid 8mo ago

> that is its always Iran/China bad and at the same time they Kidnap a foreign leader and its all wow look how great we are. If you think American news is weird, you should try reading Chinese news. English ones like China Daily or globaltimes.cn, I would read it a lot when I was in China since American news sources were blocked. It has gotten better since 2002, but is still pretty bizarre in how they frame conflicts. Forget CNN-level bias, they have FoxNews-level bias in how they do the news.

_DeadFred_ 8mo ago

Why is the top comment always this sort of concern troll derailing the topic? It seems intentional at this point to divert discussion.

chao- 8mo ago

>rarely do I see dissenting voices in the media...at the same time they Kidnap a foreign leader and its all wow look how great we are. I'm not sure if you meant to imply that there was a uniform media response of "look how great we are" vis-a-vis the abduction of Maduro? If you did, I have to disagree. A significant amount of US media time was dedicated to how not-great this was. The US media is full of propaganda. I am not disputing that. All I am saying is that the response to the Maduro abduction was not a uniform "This is great!"

js4ever 8mo ago

WTF, it's like if you don't understand why internet was blocked there or what is happening right now in Iran. Or like if you are a propagandist for IRCG

laurels-marts 8mo ago

Government cutting internet access to 90m ppl while killing protesters in the streets and “growing up without internet” is not even remotely comparable lmao.

tim333 8mo ago

>back to might is right Quite a lot of recent fighting is against that. Russia tried the might is right thing to take over Ukraine but is being fought back by an assortment of democracies. Maduro was looking like dictator for life backed by Russia and Cuba but got taken out partly due to years of protest by Venezuelans. Syria was also a Russian backed dictator overthrown by the locals. Iran looks similar - we'll have to see how it works out. Invading Greenland wouldn't be good. One of the weaknesses of the post WW2 peace is there was limited support for democracy. I don't know if that could change a bit these days?