Is GitHub Suspending the Accounts of Russian Developers at Sanctioned Companies? (bleepingcomputer.com) 159
"Russian software developers are reporting that their GitHub accounts are being suspended without warning if they work for or previously worked for companies under U.S. sanctions, writes Bleeping Computer:
According to Russian media outlets, the ban wave began on April 13 and didn't discriminate between companies and individuals. For example, the GitHub accounts of Sberbank Technology, Sberbank AI Lab, and the Alfa Bank Laboratory had their code repositories initially disabled and are now removed from the platform.... Personal accounts suspended on GitHub have their content wiped while all repositories become immediately out of reach, and the same applies to issues and pull requests.
Habr.com [a Russian collaborative blog about IT] reports that some Russian developers contacted GitHub about the suspension and received an email titled 'GitHub and Trade Controls' that explained their account was disabled due to US sanctions. This email contains a link to a GitHub page explaining the company's policies regarding sanctions and trade controls, which explains how a user can appeal their suspension. This appeal form requires the individual to certify that they do not use their GitHub account on behalf of a sanctioned entity. A developer posted to Twitter saying that he could remove the suspension after filling out the form and that it was due to his previous employer being sanctioned.
A GitHub blog post in March had promised to ensure the availability of open source services "to all, including developers in Russia." So Bleeping Computer contacted a GitHub spokesperson, who explained this weekend that while GitHub may be required to restrict some users to comply with U.S. laws, "We examine government sanctions thoroughly to be certain that users and customers are not impacted beyond what is required by law." According to this, the suspended private accounts are either affiliated, collaborating, or working with/for sanctioned entities. However, even those who previously worked for a sanctioned company appear to be suspended by mistake.
This means that Russian users, in general, can suddenly find their projects wiped and accounts suspended, even if those projects have nothing to do with the sanctioned entities.
Habr.com [a Russian collaborative blog about IT] reports that some Russian developers contacted GitHub about the suspension and received an email titled 'GitHub and Trade Controls' that explained their account was disabled due to US sanctions. This email contains a link to a GitHub page explaining the company's policies regarding sanctions and trade controls, which explains how a user can appeal their suspension. This appeal form requires the individual to certify that they do not use their GitHub account on behalf of a sanctioned entity. A developer posted to Twitter saying that he could remove the suspension after filling out the form and that it was due to his previous employer being sanctioned.
A GitHub blog post in March had promised to ensure the availability of open source services "to all, including developers in Russia." So Bleeping Computer contacted a GitHub spokesperson, who explained this weekend that while GitHub may be required to restrict some users to comply with U.S. laws, "We examine government sanctions thoroughly to be certain that users and customers are not impacted beyond what is required by law." According to this, the suspended private accounts are either affiliated, collaborating, or working with/for sanctioned entities. However, even those who previously worked for a sanctioned company appear to be suspended by mistake.
This means that Russian users, in general, can suddenly find their projects wiped and accounts suspended, even if those projects have nothing to do with the sanctioned entities.
Sanctions cover FOSS? (Score:2)
How does that work? Honest question.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about services, not software.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the service has no copyright restrictions and/or user restrictions, as evidenced by the license?
Those repos often represent no direct income for the people creating them. Support services, yeah, I can see restricting those, because that represents a potential revenue source for a Russian developer supporting their own OSS/FOSS "product'. But stuff offered "as is" under the GPL (or whatever) makes no sense in a sanction regime.
This isn't really about the projects or the people (Score:3, Insightful)
Git (Score:2)
If your project gets wiped because of Github, you weren't using Git correctly.
Also insert old adage about the cloud and someone else's computer.
Re: (Score:2)
If your project gets wiped because of Github, you weren't using Git correctly.
Also insert old adage about the cloud and someone else's computer.
If your project repo gets wiped out, sure. If your project issues, plans and pull requests (as opposed to branches) get wiped out then you are using GitHub in exactly the way it's designed to be used.
Re: (Score:2)
Pull requests are in your coworkers computers. They can just send it to you again. Losing the rest is probably a net plus for the project.
Yes and it's terrible. (Score:2)
It is open source and was nothing beyond a library useful to any application needed an ACID compliant key-value store. While the code is definitely "Russian" in style and the principal developer is Russian - it was like any other community project.
I used this library
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any reason to know that it was taken down by GitHub rather than by the developer himself? If it was by GitHub do you know that it was a removal of the project rather than the developer's account which the repo was linked to? The only explanation that I can find is that it's "mysterious". Maybe the developer is protesting against GitHub?
I found that there's already a restored clone [github.com] which has clearly been allowed by GitHub so this doesn't seem to be doing that much harm. I'd suggest that they s
Re: (Score:2)
Quote: "There was not a single reason for idiotic GitHub to take it down. "
How about... Abiding the Law as reason? Or have you lost all reason and became a lawless thinker?
Re: Yes and it's terrible. (Score:2)
Centralisation of the Internet (Score:2)
Good example (Score:2)
Pleasures of the cloud... (Score:2)
Your servers may go away at any time and for reasons you have very little control over. Not good. Take note all you cloud-fans and re-think your position.
In some regulated environments, there are tendencies to _require_ companies to be prepared to get _out_ of the cloud again (not simply be able to move to a different one, that requirement is obvious) and that is no accident at all. The cloud offerings available today are unproven, still far too dynamic and come with hard to assess and sometimes surprising
Do they lsits which countries laws they follow? (Score:2)
Can Taiwan-ese, i mean west Chinese, people have GitHub accounts?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I support "the current thing".
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah war is a minor thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Wars happen all the time and are easy to ignore if they are not happening to you personally.
Now World Wars, we've only had a couple of those...
Re: (Score:2)
...yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the solution to the world population that I expected us to pick.
Re: (Score:2)
A legal definition of genocide:
Genocide can be committed in a number of ways, including killing members of a group or causing them serious mental or bodily harm, deliberately inflicting conditions that will bring about a group's physical destruction, imposing measures on a group to prevent births, and forcefully transferring children from one group to another.
I'd argue that China likely has committed genocide on Uyghurs.
And US politicians have kidnapped children in Ukraine [slashdot.org] and that could be interpreted as genocide if it were done on a larger scale.
Russians forcing Ukraine children into illegal adoption is going to reach the threshold of genocide by the time this thing is over. Probably not that point today, or at least there isn't enough proof to convict.
Re: (Score:2)
This is off topic, but I would argue we have had three World Wars: the two to which you refer and the Napoleonic wars.
Re: Russian Gittleship, Fuck Yourself (Score:2)
I would argue we have had many world wars. The definition of world is what matters and it's pretty much set as "recorded by history".
By that the ongoing battles in the EU kingdoms, mass global colonialism, crusades... all wars fought across the majority of recorded civilized land.
And every great empire had to have constant endless battles to get to their size and when you consider the number of parties involved being a large percent of the known world; they were world wars over a very long time. These woul
Re: (Score:2)
It does feel like the same cast of characters in The Seven Years' War, Napoleonic wars, World War I & II, etc.
For the sake of world peace, I'm starting to think that Europeans and their cultural descendants shouldn't be allowed to own anything beyond a slightly pointed stick.
Re: (Score:3)
If it were any nation but Russia (and China). We would probably be much more military involved in fighting Ukraine, as it was a blatant attack to prevent them from entering NATO. However because of their nuclear arms that they have on stock, every nation besides Ukraine, cannot actively be involved in the war fair. So until Russia attacks a NATO Country, there is just a lot of middle man support for Ukraine, (providing arms, sanctions against Russia...)
This is very close to World War III, to prevent it, w
Re:Russian Gittleship, Fuck Yourself (Score:5, Informative)
You forgot about the coup in 2014, where the US poured $2bn into right wing Ukrainian nationalist, anti-Russian, groups to depose the Russia neutral government,
Russia-neutral? Hardly. The previous government pulled out of talks to join the EU (an economic community, not a military alliance) because of pressure from Russia. What you're really saying is that it's okay for Russia to bribe and pressure its neighbors, but it's not okay for the U.S. or any of Ukraine's western neighbors to interfere to protect Ukrainian sovereignty. That's the height of hypocrisy.
Also, what evidence do you have for your claim that the U.S. funded the coup? I find none. The U.S. gave a lot of money AFTER the coup so that the Ukraine could repay the debts taken on by the Yanukovych government without becoming dependent on Russia's aid, but there's zero evidence that they had any role in funding the coup.
And it is important to understand that the post-coup government is no longer running Ukraine. They have had elections since then, with extensive oversight to ensure that those elections were free and fair. The government that Russia is trying to illegally topple with its invasion is the duly elected government of a sovereign nation, and the pre-coup government that Russia is trying to reinstall has no legitimate claim to power.
which then subsequently banned the Russian language
They reverted a law passed under the prior pro-Russian regime just two years prior that attempted to make Russian a national language, and passed laws requiring that the government, schools, etc. must operate in Ukrainian language, and that publications must either be in Ukrainian or have a Ukrainian translation. That's a long way from banning the Russian language.
and started attempting to kill off what they called "cockroaches" aka Russian identifying Ukrainian citizens.
And now you're solidly into conspiracy nutter territory... unless, by that, you mean killing off the armed separatists backed by the Russian government that illegally seized control of various parts of Ukraine, in which case yes, a duly elected government has a legal right to take back control of its territory.
Similarly, a government also has a legal right to ensure that elections are held in an impartial manner, free from interference. Any election held during either a period of illegal Russian military occupation (e.g. the Crimean vote to break away) or a period of control by separatist extremists is, by its very nature, presumptively illegitimate. Until such time as Ukraine is fully free of illegal Russian military occupation and until the extremist groups controlling the breakaway territories stand down, no legitimate vote on the future of those territories can possibly occur, because no vote can be trusted to be free from interference under threat of harm. Disarming is the first step.
After that the US dumped weapons and cash into the hands of right wing nationalists for 8 years to support the shelling of Russian-identifying Ukrainian citizens in regions that had declared autonomy from/did not recognize the coup-government.
If by "right-wing nationalists", you mean the legal government of Ukraine, then sure. Otherwise, once again, this is conspiracy nutter territory.
This isn't propaganda, it's historical fact you can verify yourself.
No, that's propaganda.
Here's a video from a mainstream, pro-US international relations scholar describing how the US was planning to wreck Ukraine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Repeat after me: "Anybody can say anything they want to on YouTube. That doesn't prove that they're right."
Helpful hint: When the UN General Assembly votes to condemn your country's actions and only four other countries side with you, there's a pre
Re: (Score:2)
Apologies for that "the Ukraine" slip. My age is showing. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I have respect for your perspective, especially considering your laying it out in opposition to his.
> ... You should be ashamed of yourself.
I don't want to repeat your last sentenses' characterizations. But why the steep rhetorical escalation ?
Re: (Score:2)
> Because all you Putin bootlickers need to be reminded that people in your situation should feel shame. That fact you don't, tells you all everything you need to know.
Character attacks and insults. Nothing really to respond to, I also have my doubts about you being dgatwood.
Re: (Score:2)
> If I thought you had a character I'd attack it. Insults, sure. All Putin bootlickers should feel insulted ... I've been pointing out your Russian sympathizer tendencies for longer than that
You're wrong, but even if you were right, what result do you think will come from saying stuff like that ? I'm really curious.
> Imagine starting a war to limit NATO expansion and end up with an even bigger expanded NATO than you were trying to prevent.
I know, right, so counter productive.
> Nope not dgatwood
Than
Re:Russian Gittleship, Fuck Yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
+1. Want life to go back to normal in Russia?
Simple. Kill Putin.
Yes, that's easier said than done. Either find a way, or make one.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the narrative we've all (outside Russia) seem to have been fed thus far, this might seem like a potential solution (though simply removing him from power would suffice without the extra threats of death). However, you're making some mental leaps
1 - You're asking an already heeled population to actively revolt while they already actively consume advertisements for the power of their own government across their "trusted" media outlets.
2- You're assuming the next ruler to take hold would not hold similar
Re: (Score:2)
3- You're assuming you have all the pertinent facts on this situation, and I'm sorry, but even without knowing them myself, I can assure you that you don't have that sort of insight into the full picture of why this is happening.
What pertinent facts are you looking for? Should we have Joe Rogan "look into it"? Maybe all those innocent people aren't really dead? Maybe there is a reasonable explanation for the slaughter and we should just get over it? Is this another witch hunt?
Re:Russian Gittleship, Fuck Yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
Putin steals a lot of money. The oligarchs steal a lot of money. Yachts, panama accounts, palaces, mistresses. His popularity was declining. A war, along with total media control allows him to regain popularity. Us vs Them. Nationalism saves him, Same thing happened with his bombings and Chechen war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings
You can hide behind the endless confusion that ethnic nonsense brings, or you can deal with the greed and psychopathy of individual human beings. Russians are people. Ukrainians are people.
Re: (Score:2)
Putin steals a lot of money. The oligarchs steal a lot of money. Yachts, panama accounts, palaces, mistresses. His popularity was declining. A war, along with total media control allows him to regain popularity.
That is true.
So you're saying it's not just the US, it's also Putin who was basically using the opportunity?
Russians are people. Ukrainians are people.
I don't recall I ever doubted that.
or you can deal with the greed and psychopathy of individual human beings
I do. I just don't ignore that our leaders aren't exactly saints, either. There WERE opportunities to avoid this bloodshed. At the price of a bit of pride and geo-political grandstanding. Apparently, everyone was more happy to let thousands of civilians die than pay that price.
Re: (Score:2)
I do. I just don't ignore that our leaders aren't exactly saints, either. There WERE opportunities to avoid this bloodshed. At the price of a bit of pride and geo-political grandstanding. Apparently, everyone was more happy to let thousands of civilians die than pay that price.
What opportunity? Ukraine to demilitarize in exchange for not being invaded? They tried that once before [wikipedia.org], no one is dumb enough for fall for that twice, especially when the guy who broke the first "don't invade" promise is the one proposing to make the second one.
Re: (Score:2)
What opportunity? Ukraine to demilitarize in exchange for not being invaded?
Neutrality and an end of western meddling in Ukraine, with the constant trying to tug it into the western sphere of influence.
That option was on the table for a long time. Tell the relatives of the Ukraine dead that it was right to throw that option out because maybe some time in the future someone would have not respected the deal.
Ukraine signed the Minsk agreement and then didn't follow through with what it signed. I mean, while we're speaking about trust and all that. All the options for peace were there
Re: (Score:2)
What opportunity? Ukraine to demilitarize in exchange for not being invaded?
Neutrality and an end of western meddling in Ukraine, with the constant trying to tug it into the western sphere of influence.
And what if the Ukrainians don't want that?
Ukraine signed the Minsk agreement and then didn't follow through with what it signed. I mean, while we're speaking about trust and all that.
Why do you think they didn't follow through?
At any time since 2014 if the Ukrainian army entered the separatist territories the Russian army would quickly enter to defend them. Ukrainians breaking the Minsk agreement would be simply insane.
Russia breaking it and keeping the conflict going, that on the other hand makes all kinds of sense.
The fact is that the low-scale war in the East kept going since 2014 because Russia made sure it stayed alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
roughly, yes.
He's still a bully. But western nations have ignored his clear "do this and I'll shit my pants and do something stupid" messages for well over a decade now. At the very least, our leaders are idiots and a couple of the dead are on their hands.
Re:LOL @ the amount of copium (Score:4, Insightful)
If you buy his message that he is only concerned about NATO expansion, then you're just one of his useful idiots. He doesn't want NATO expansion BECAUSE it is a threat to him in rebuilding a Russian Empire. NATO expansion is a threat to him taking back Ukraine, and then the Baltic states.
No matter what happens with NATO, he was always going to try to take back Ukraine, and then the Baltic states. You'd be an idiot if you think you can find a compromise.
The reason why he seems to be shitting his pants now is that he realizes that his chance to destabilize the West had gone. He managed to influence Brexit and Trump, but Trump was unable to finish off NATO. It seems like he thought Trump would get two consecutive terms and had more time to prepare to take Ukraine, but now that it hasn't happened, and the US intelligence is on to his meddling in US elections, it was now or never.
Re: (Score:2)
The message that Putin has been sending to the West, that the West has ignored, is that his aim is to rebuild the Russian Empire, no matter the cost.
Really? Where? Can you point to actual quotes to that effect?
Meanwhile, there is a LOT of direct quotes and other first-hand material that clearly states what I said. From the media (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/30/russia-will-act-if-nato-countries-cross-ukraine-red-lines-putin-says) to the various parliaments (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9401/)
No matter what happens with NATO, he was always going to try to take back Ukraine, and then the Baltic states. You'd be an idiot if you think you can find a compromise.
Putin came to power in 1999 (or in 2000 depending on how you count). In over 15 years he made no steps to do any of tha
Re: (Score:2)
The message that Putin has been sending to the West, that the West has ignored, is that his aim is to rebuild the Russian Empire, no matter the cost.
Really? Where? Can you point to actual quotes to that effect?
One should always judge leaders by their actions, not their words. Putin's Russia has a history of meddling in its neighbors' elections in an effort to put in place Russian puppet governments. It may not be precisely rebuilding the Russian empire, but the net effect is similar.
No matter what happens with NATO, he was always going to try to take back Ukraine, and then the Baltic states. You'd be an idiot if you think you can find a compromise.
Putin came to power in 1999 (or in 2000 depending on how you count). In over 15 years he made no steps to do any of that. The Ukraine crisis began with the Maidan revolution and has been going on ever since.
Let's talk about that "revolution". It wasn't a revolution, and calling it that is, in and of itself, pro-Russian propaganda.
What happened was that Yanukovych was unpopular in some parts of the country because of his refusal to let
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Where? Can you point to actual quotes to that effect?
Putin has written essays saying that Ukraine should not exist.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/... [lse.ac.uk]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.msnbc.com/mehdi-ha... [msnbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Accepted for the question of Ukraine.
The claim was bigger. Rebuilding the Russian Empire. That means Baltic states next, then the asian states like Kazakhstan and a bunch of others.
You can find evidence for that, or we can agree to tone down the rhetorics from "Russian Empire" to something like "gobbling up Belarus and Ukraine" - I'd agree to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's talk about that "revolution". It wasn't a revolution, and calling it that is, in and of itself, pro-Russian propaganda.
Offer a better word, I'm not hung up on the word, but the government was overthrown by a mob and words like "uprising" and comparison to the Orange Revolution were used at that time in the media a lot. Hence I picked that word, but we can substitute it, no problem.
Russia unilaterally invaded Crimea. Russia's actions were clearly intended to reinstall a deposed puppet leader
In Sevastopol instead of Kiev? That doesn't make sense.
Don't fish for crazy explanations. Sevastopol is the Black Sea Fleet main base and Russia couldn't risk losing access to it.
There was no legitimate justification for Russia invading Crimea
Which is why it's not recognized as Russian by anyone except Belarus
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have anything to prove to internet nobodies.
Russia would have invaded Ukraine whether or not it joined NATO. That's the thing that matters now, which goes against your claim that Putin was only concerned about NATO expansion.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't fish for crazy explanations.
It's what Russia is literally doing right now.
If you can't see the link between then and now, you simply discredit yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't come up with this idea myself. This is what analysts have studied, from Putin's words and actions, and those who surround him.
I'll take that for starters. Point me to them, please.
Russia would have invaded Ukraine whether or not it joined NATO. That's the thing that matters now, which goes against your claim that Putin was only concerned about NATO expansion.
Putin has been in power since 1999. No invasion of Ukraine happened in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Then in 2014, Russia invaded Crimea (some percents of Ukraine by land mass). Then no further invasions in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018. In 2019, Ukraine put "join NATO" as a state goal into its constitution. Russian complaints and pointing out that that's a red line became ever more clearly stated a
Re: (Score:2)
You are literally claiming that Russia took Crimea in 2014 for the purpose of replacing the government in Kiev (over 600km away) in whatever magical way that would've worked, then had a "what did I want?" moment for 8 years and earlier this year Putin found the old plans in his socks drawer and went "ah right! completely forgot about that!" ?
Re: (Score:2)
If Putin were a rational actor, this whole shitshow wouldn't be happening.
Re: LOL @ the amount of copium (Score:2)
"Once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane."
Acting like an unhinged bully CANNOT be rewarded. I'm sure even a professional Russian fellow-traveler such as yourself can understand that. No one who had survived grade school can fail to understand that.
Re: (Score:2)
It is against international law to murder a head of state. Even during wartime. The only thing you can do is bombing/attacking his supposed location.
Re: (Score:2)
Also why would it be against international law for one of Russia's citizens to assassinate Putin?
Re: Russian Gittleship, Fuck Yourself (Score:2)
"We are altering the law. Pray all you want, we're going to alter it further."
Re: (Score:2)
Ramzan Kadyrov is a likely candidate to replace Putin should he die.
Re: (Score:2)
Ramzan Kadyrov is a likely candidate to replace Putin should he die.
Nope.
Kadyrov is Muslim. Russians are fine to let him rule over his little pocket of Muslims within Russia, but they're never going to let a Muslim rule over the whole thing.
Truth is I don't think there's an obvious successor if Putin goes down by design. The point of the Russian state is to keep Putin in power, and a plan of succession undermines that goal.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? They let a Ukrainian rule over the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? They let a Ukrainian rule over the whole thing.
As seen with Putin Russians don't necessarily think of Ukraine as a separate country. Either way, when you're trying to hold the USSR together putting a non-Russian in the top job isn't a bad idea if you're acting like it's not just a Russian empire (especially if they're ethnically similar and Russian is still their native language).
But there's a big difference between that and putting a Muslim in charge, especially when the country is going hard-right verging on fascism.
If you want to understand the role
Re: (Score:2)
ok, guess we'll have to settle with Aleksandr Dugin then.
Re: (Score:2)
Then kill him or her, too. Eventually nobody will want the job.
Re: (Score:2)
If Trump had chosen to invade Canada, losing a double-digit percentage of our military forces in the process along with 20,000+ of our troops, then yes, I would have advocated killing him, too.
I have no use for Trump but at least he didn't start any wars.
Re: (Score:2)
How's that working out for not getting the US involved in wars? Or does Trump's actions magically have no link to current events simply because the title of President is on someone else now?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you want to cancel Russian state managed accounts, then sure, go for it, whatever. But canceling individual and business accounts seems childish.
So you're saying I should follow the law in one case, but break the law in two other cases.
You want me to go to prison for you.
Why should I? You go to prison for your own damn self. Also fuck you for the expectation I pay the consequences for your actions!
Dixie Chicks (Score:2, Troll)
Remember when republicans cancelled The Dixie Chicks back in 2003? Pepperidge Farms remembers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Russian Gittleship, Fuck Yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
For just #reasons? Like invading a sovereign country and murdering it's civilians? This is not "cancel culture". This is not shunning or deplatforming someone just because of some wrongthink of theirs. It's a little beyond that.
I hate to say this, but I'm not sure there is any realistic way to punish a regime without hurting the people who prop up that regime, either explicitly via their actions, or implicitly via inaction. I don't hate the Russian people. Most of them are probably a decent lot. But they have a bad leader who is directing their armed forces in a brutal war on an innocent population. There's a price that needs to be paid for that, and I'm sorry to say, that price will largely fall on the people of Russia.
For what it's worth, a large number of very specific sanctions and penalties have been directed at Putin's family and other leaders. But by the nature of such things, that's going to hurt them far less than it would ordinary citizens.
Re: Russian Gittleship, Fuck Yourself (Score:2)
I'm not sure if I would like to help or support anyone who supports this kind of human rights abuse and disregard for human life. Those that do not support these things will presumably be too busy protesting the actions taking place to have time to use GitHub anyway. So in summary there's zero loss, assuming that after Russia returns to abiding laws and respecting human life GitHub restores access and repos.
Re: (Score:3)
So github was the staging ground? Some software developers have planned out the whole invasion using a repository? Maybe their npm library is crucial to the war effort?
As a matter of face, programmers ARE directly involved in this war. Not that any such justification is needed though. We're applying general economic sanctions to Russia, so that may include some services like Github, or at least some specific accounts at sanctioned companies. Russian banks and financial institutions didn't plan the invasion either. You seem to be missing the point of these actions entirely.
Just to clarify that: Is your purpose to punish someone, or to end a war? These are not the same thing.
It's to punish Russia for their aggression. I'm under no illusion that this will actually force
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be missing the point of these actions entirely.
I believe I see it very clearly - but it has nothing to do with the war. It's an ongoing geopolitical conflict between rivaling capitalist blocks. The war just offered the opportunity to use sanctions that hurt your own country and that before the unwashed masses wouldn't have accepted.
Doing nothing in response to naked aggression is not an option. History has given us very clear lessons regarding this. Russia has invaded another country and is literally killing thousands of people. You'll forgive me if I don't shed a single fucking tear if a few Russian programmers are inconvenienced.
At least we're clear about the purpose, finally someone said it. Yes, I can follow that argument. We don't want to join the war, but we want to do something, and we can't let them get away with what they've done, so let's hur
Re: (Score:2)
>It's an ongoing geopolitical conflict between rivaling...
Umm, what exactly do you think war is? It's all rival governments vying for power in the absence of a sufficiently compelling motive for peace. When firing guns promises to be sufficiently profitable, guns get fired. If you can accomplish the same goals more cheaply by sanctions, propaganda, and other forms of manipulating the populace, those get used instead. But don't be fooled that the war wasn't happening just because shots weren't being f
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, what exactly do you think war is? It's all rival governments vying for power in the absence of a sufficiently compelling motive for peace. When firing guns promises to be sufficiently profitable, guns get fired. If you can accomplish the same goals more cheaply by sanctions, propaganda, and other forms of manipulating the populace, those get used instead. But don't be fooled that the war wasn't happening just because shots weren't being fired.
I agree with that completely, except that I call it "conflict" until shots are fired and "war" afterwards, but that's just semantics.
Yes, the conflict with Russia has been going on (and slowly escalating) for at least 15 years now openly and probably never really stopped so it's still the continuation of the cold war.
WTF are you talking about? That's the ENTIRE POINT of sanctions.
That's what I've been saying. But both the media and lots of forum postings want to make you believe that the sanctions are some kind of magic trick to end the war. Especially when the story go
Re: (Score:2)
>"we've already made sanctions, but the war is still going on, so we need to make more sanctions and quickly"
Which is how economic warfare works. It seems as though one of the guiding philosophies of warfare is "if violence didn't solve your problem, you didn't use enough violence." The same applies to economic warfare.
There is no "magic trick" to war - just violence that keeps increasing until it gets too expensive to continue.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is how economic warfare works.
So it seems we are in agreement.
a) we're in the middle of an economic war between the West and Russia
b) that war started at least a decade ago
c) the invasion of Ukraine gave the West an opportunity to dial it up and add measures that hurt their own people, which those people wouldn't have accepted without the war as justification
d) media and politicians saying the purpose of the sanctions is to end the war is complete bullshit
Re: (Score:2)
By your own argument (d) is bullshit. Akin to saying the reason for shooting at enemy soldiers is not to end the war. The reason you fight a war at all is to end it - in your favor. Just because the war predates the current battlefield doesn't change that.
I mean, I suppose it's not impossible - fighting a war has various benefits for leading your own population around by the nose and inflicting things that have nothing to do with the war on them, and politicians may seek to start or prolong a war war for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
War is punitive. This is the main message. Offender may ignore it (thus you can't directly end war), bombing Lviv this very night, making more people killed, further pressing brave defenders of Mariupol with his brutality. Sanctions are expense. They do work, contrary to what you attempt to argue, albeit not immediately. Some code-keeping platform is not the direct stage of the war, but component, used by bodies, related to sanctioned entities - things are less random, than in your "arguments".
Re: (Score:2)
, albeit not immediately
Re: Russian Gittleship, Fuck Yourself (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, tell you what, he next time a Ukrainian mother has to be told that their child was killed because of the indiscriminate bombing from the Russians, I vote that your ass is there to tell that grieving mother.
I volunteer if you go to the next Russian mother to tell her that her child was killed in that same war and she's a bad person that needs to be punished by sanctions.
99.99% of the people somehow involved in this are just humans trying to make it from cradle to grave in the best possible way. It's out asshole leaders playing geo-political chess with us as the pawns who deserve the punishment. Puting for being a warmonger, various western leaders for their false promises and their meddling in Ukraine and then
Re: (Score:2)
Get me on a plane if you like. Hell, I have no issues standing in front of all of Russia and explain to them in painful detail how they are the root cause of all their issues....PERIOD. You can try to use all the bullshit, finger-pointing "look at what happened over there" you want, but the facts are the facts. It is Russians killing Ukrainians for no other reason that they want to grow the Russian empire. Get off your damn high-horse and throwing your bullshit moral equivalence around like it means anythin
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, I have no issues standing in front of all of Russia and explain to them in painful detail how they are the root cause of all their issues....PERIOD
Read my answer to the comment above yours about that.
It is Russians killing Ukrainians for no other reason that they want to grow the Russian empire
Russian SOLDIERS. And I doubt their personal goal is anything like that. It's more something like getting paid, going home not in a body bag, and not being shot for disobeying orders.
Get off your damn high-horse and throwing your bullshit moral equivalence around
Just trying to remind you that there are HUMANS in this world, not just good boys and bad guys. This ain't a Hollywood movie.
DYING at the hands of the Russian army who is made up of Russian citizens
Yes, but only 0.5% of them. Most Russians are NOT soldiers.
you are either for the Ukrainian people or you are for the Russian people.
I refuse that Bush-ism. I can be not for your and also not against you. I can be for both th
Re: (Score:2)
Well, tell you what, he next time a Ukrainian mother has to be told that their child was killed because of the indiscriminate bombing from the Russians, I vote that your ass is there to tell that grieving mother.
I volunteer if you go to the next Russian mother to tell her that her child was killed in that same war and she's a bad person that needs to be punished by sanctions.
No one should be that cruel to a grieving parent. That person has already paid dearly for her country's actions. But understand that there's no way to say "We're going to punish the Russian people except for those who have lost loved ones in the war." The real world doesn't work that way.
The fact of the matter is that Russia is (at least ostensibly) a democracy. Vladimir Putin's actions have put that country against essentially the entire world. Yet a whopping 83% of the Russian people still support hi
Re: (Score:2)
No one should be that cruel to a grieving parent.
At least some common ground there.
But understand that there's no way to say "We're going to punish the Russian people except for those who have lost loved ones in the war." The real world doesn't work that way.
Yes, but you have to argue why you consider it right to punish the Russian people at all. For that, they need to be somehow guilty of something, and not just by association.
The fact of the matter is that Russia is (at least ostensibly) a democracy.
Whenever someone writes about Russia, the tone is different. Putin is called a dictator and autocrat, the weaknesses of the political system are outlined, the focus on how opposition forces are jailed, etc. etc.
So make your pick. Don't call Putin an autocrat and then claim Russia is a democracy. One or t
Re: (Score:2)
But understand that there's no way to say "We're going to punish the Russian people except for those who have lost loved ones in the war." The real world doesn't work that way.
Yes, but you have to argue why you consider it right to punish the Russian people at all. For that, they need to be somehow guilty of something, and not just by association.
I'm still of the opinion that, as broken as Russia's democracy might be, it is still a democracy. The people still have the power to change their government. Yet they do not. As John Stuart Mill put it, "Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name,
Re: (Score:2)
The people still have the power to change their government.
Do they?
How many democratic countries do you know that have the same guy at the helm for over 20 years?
That is, at a bare minimum, tacit consent.
I would agree to that.
In no proper court in the world is "tacit consent" enough for a guilty sentence, though. You need to be somehow actively involved in the crime.
And yet since he took office, the value of the Ruble, adjusted for inflation, has lost more than an entire decimal place.
And yet home ownership, for example, peaked in 2018 with over 80% of residential spaces privately owned. Health care is pretty good and free, GDP is several times what it was in the 90s (e.g. https://tradingeconomics.com/r... [tradingeconomics.com]) even though it we
Re: (Score:2)
The people still have the power to change their government.
Do they? How many democratic countries do you know that have the same guy at the helm for over 20 years?
Define "at the helm". Mitch McConnell has been in the U.S. Senate since 1985 (37 years), and either the majority or minority leader continuously since 2007 (15 years). Without term limits, this is pretty much the expected behavior of a democracy, because people tend to stick with the leader they know unless that leader screws up really badly.
That is, at a bare minimum, tacit consent.
I would agree to that. In no proper court in the world is "tacit consent" enough for a guilty sentence, though. You need to be somehow actively involved in the crime.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that tacit consent doesn't have consequences. If you fail to speak up when your boss tells your coworkers to implement a stupid plan that
Re: (Score:2)
Define "at the helm".
Running the country.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that tacit consent doesn't have consequences.
But we're not talking about consequences (i.e. a chain of events) but of intentional punishment. If you don't pay attention where you walk, you could fall into a manhole and die (consequences). Nowhere in the world is the death sentence a punishment for not paying attention when walking. There's a difference.
The objective of sanctions is getting Russia to pull out of Ukraine
Not working so far, unlikely to work, no example in history where that ever worked.
Sanctions do at least sometimes work.
Thanks for the list. I didn't know about some of those.
Neither of those last two groups are likely to be impacted much, if at all.
Are you kidding me? The German foreign minis
Re: (Score:2)
Define "at the helm".
Running the country.
Unfortunately, that's still not really clearly defined. Consider the President of the U.S., for a moment. Although Biden controls the military, Congress controls the military's budget; they can yank the budget for a war, and boom. No more war. He can veto bills, but a large enough percentage of Congress can override that veto. He can guide the operation of other parts of the executive branch. And he can nominate people for various offices, but only with Senate approval. In other words, the president'
Re: (Score:2)
I'll leave out some parts which IMHO are dead ends. It's getting too long.
AFAIK, no country at war has ever been as close to defaulting on its enormous debts, either. If the Ruble becomes worthless or nearly so, Putin can't pay the troops, and Russia likely no longer has a military.
Ruble isn't worthless inside Russia. On the contrary, prices have apparently gone back to normal. It might become worthless for international purposes, but as long as you can buy bread and pay your rent in Rubles, it isn't worthless and the troops can be paid in it.
That will never happen. There are two reasons why. First, Russia will always feel threatened. How many of Russia's neighbors or near neighbors has it invaded unilaterally since the fall of the Soviet Union? Georgia (several times), Ukraine (several times), Chechnya (several times), Syria, Tajikistan, and Moldova. Did I miss any?
Please remove Syria from that list. Russia was the ONLY foreign military that was/is there according to international law (i.e. by invitation of the official government).
Yo
Re: (Score:2)
I'll leave out some parts which IMHO are dead ends. It's getting too long.
AFAIK, no country at war has ever been as close to defaulting on its enormous debts, either. If the Ruble becomes worthless or nearly so, Putin can't pay the troops, and Russia likely no longer has a military.
Ruble isn't worthless inside Russia. On the contrary, prices have apparently gone back to normal. It might become worthless for international purposes, but as long as you can buy bread and pay your rent in Rubles, it isn't worthless and the troops can be paid in it.
Assuming Russians want to buy anything made outside of Russia, that becomes problematic. I mean, I'm not saying you're wrong, but it isn't quite as simple as that once hyperinflation kicks in and cell phone prices rise to a billion Rubles.
That will never happen. There are two reasons why. First, Russia will always feel threatened. How many of Russia's neighbors or near neighbors has it invaded unilaterally since the fall of the Soviet Union? Georgia (several times), Ukraine (several times), Chechnya (several times), Syria, Tajikistan, and Moldova. Did I miss any?
Please remove Syria from that list. Russia was the ONLY foreign military that was/is there according to international law (i.e. by invitation of the official government).
That's arguable. Military actions against a foreign government making use of illegal chemical weapons against its citizens are arguably in support of international law, and military actions to defend that government are arguably a violation of at least the spirit of (if
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming Russians want to buy anything made outside of Russia, that becomes problematic. I mean, I'm not saying you're wrong, but it isn't quite as simple as that once hyperinflation kicks in and cell phone prices rise to a billion Rubles.
Of course, if your currency crashes on the international exchange market, there will be problems. But Russia is a large country that can manufacture a lot of what is needed internally - maybe not at the same efficiency, quality or cost as imports, but it's not exactly the Vatican which depends on imports even for toilet paper.
That's arguable.
It really isn't. We can argue about Syrias government and all, that's true. And some of their actions could have been a reason for UN sanctioned interventions, true. But the fact is th
Re: (Score:2)
That's arguable.
It really isn't. We can argue about Syrias government and all, that's true. And some of their actions could have been a reason for UN sanctioned interventions, true. But the fact is that the UN did not agree to an intervention and the official government of the country asked a foreign country (Russia) for help, which they sent. No matter what you think of the Syrian government or the whole Syria situation, international law is pretty clear on who's there legally and who isn't.
No, it actually isn't. The rules of the U.N. are clear, but those rules also give Russia and China the right to veto any intervention without allowing it to even get a vote, which means any country that is close enough to either of those countries can basically do anything they want with impunity, and rely on daddy Russia or whoever to bail them out. At some point, you have to acknowledge that until the security council removes veto rights, any claim that a lack of security council approval is evidence of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. I can reprimand any other country's invasions _as well as my own country's invasions._ Your position is simply a flimsy justification for promulgating hate against Americans, which makes you just as much of a problem as the idiots doing the invading.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to next level woke, I guess? Seems now businesses will just cancel you because #reasons.
Calling an invasion of a sovereign nation, woke and #reasons? I'm going to assume you were either high on an acid trip when you posted this. The alternative is that you were being sincere in which case go fuck yourself with a pineapple. And don't use lube.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Amazon warned Parler repeatedly. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a... [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints," Amazon's lawyers stated in a court filing. "Instead, this case is about Parler's demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services ('AWS') content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture and assassination of named public officials and private citizens."
Parler's refusal to moderate content resulted in a "steady increase" in violent content on the network, b