←back to thread

A German ISP changed their DNS to block my website

(lina.sh)
808 points shaunpud | 6 comments | 24 Aug 25 10:27 UTC | HN request time: 0.229s | source | bottom
Show context
ulrischa ◴[24 Aug 25 11:15 UTC] No.45003303[source]▶
[flagged]
replies(14): >>45003337 #>>45003374 #>>45003410 #>>45003499 #>>45003518 #>>45003524 #>>45003575 #>>45003629 #>>45003661 #>>45003806 #>>45003857 #>>45003931 #>>45004178 #>>45004483 #
mtsr ◴[24 Aug 25 11:20 UTC] No.45003337[source]▶
[flagged]
replies(21): >>45003342 #>>45003345 #>>45003346 #>>45003391 #>>45003392 #>>45003398 #>>45003404 #>>45003512 #>>45003529 #>>45003556 #>>45003595 #>>45003625 #>>45003637 #>>45003640 #>>45003723 #>>45003781 #>>45003796 #>>45003815 #>>45003880 #>>45004011 #>>45004548 #
heelix ◴[24 Aug 25 11:53 UTC] No.45003529[source]▶
I would. Appetite for censorship should be measured against something I find unpalatable. When one starts down the road of making decisions for others - it is only a question of time before someone does the same for you with possibly a different perspective. The moment one finds themselves outside the groupthink on spaces vs tabs, I'd like that bar to be as far away as possible.
replies(3): >>45003551 #>>45003569 #>>45004075 #
bootsmann ◴[24 Aug 25 11:56 UTC] No.45003551[source]▶
> The moment one finds themselves outside the groupthink

The RT ban is not about what RT publishes, you are free to publish their arguments more or less verbatim on your own site without getting sanctioned in Europe (which indeed some people do). The RT ban is about RT being a state owned propaganda network owned by the government thats waging an active war against Europe.

replies(5): >>45003645 #>>45003653 #>>45003676 #>>45003834 #>>45004106 #
1. zahlman ◴[24 Aug 25 12:42 UTC] No.45003834[source]▶
If there's nothing wrong with what is being said, then why should it matter who says it? Does propaganda somehow gain effectiveness because it comes "from the source"?
replies(2): >>45003980 #>>45006744 #
2. jpalawaga ◴[24 Aug 25 13:05 UTC] No.45003980[source]▶
Sanctions are about impinging others freedom because they’re behaving badly.

“Why can’t I play with the kid who is in timeout? Is it because you hate my freedom?”

replies(2): >>45004003 #>>45004532 #
3. zahlman ◴[24 Aug 25 13:08 UTC] No.45004003[source]▶
I would think that enforcing economic sanctions would be a far more effective use of time and effort.
replies(1): >>45004160 #
4. throwaway290 ◴[24 Aug 25 13:36 UTC] No.45004160{3}[source]▶
Shutting down a business = economic sanctions. Blocking domain of a web publication is part of shutting it down.

What do you prefer instead, to make domain registrars enforce sanctions instead of blocking on DNS level? That would quickly make so that no one with Russian passport is able to register a domain no matter how much we are against russia or putin

5. tpoacher ◴[24 Aug 25 14:31 UTC] No.45004532[source]▶
Except your analogy here should be more "there's a kid on timeout so nobody gets to play, just in case"
6. bootsmann ◴[24 Aug 25 19:03 UTC] No.45006744[source]▶
Because the people writing the laws within the EU are also acutely aware that phrasing this ban too broadly constrains freedom of speech. The way the ban is handed is walking the fine line between impinging freedom of speech and denying a enemy state from waging an information war. Romania had to rerun an election due to Russian inference, this isn’t just a phantom the EU made up to censor opinions it doesn’t like.