
Instagram submits to Russia censor's demands - uptown
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43070555
======
mc32
In the end, you either play by their rules and get to play, or you don't, you
get kicked out and don't get to play. They saw that happen with Google in
China and saw native players take hold -even if they were initially inferior.

While it is submission (morally, politically, legally, etc.) it's the long
game to play, otherwise you risk not having any future say --unless there is
an internal revolt which upends things. But even then there is no assurance
the new shire reeves will play nice with the alien enterprise.

~~~
sschueller
You also have to play by the "US rules" which means no nudity or anything that
would get you kicked out of the Apple App Store.

It is a self censorship which is just as bad if not worse.

~~~
mc32
The US is not equal to Apple and vice versa. You have alternatives to the App
Store. In China the App Store does not get to determine what's acceptable and
not, it's the gov.

But back to the matter at hand, we're talking about the kerbing of political
freedom. Sometimes you have to submit, in these cases, you don't have a
choice. As Bond's villains are wont to say, "your only choice is to not play"
but that gives the native players complete control over the market, as they
will be happy to comply -and you only have your principles to point to --but
that's an illusion because someone else is breaking them in your stead, so the
cause is effectively broken. And given we don't reciprocate [the tactics],
that means those players one day will get to compete against you in your own
territory...

It's a prisoners' dilemma where you know what your "accomplice"/adversary will
chose to do in advance.

~~~
supergirl
US = corporations. Look at the war on fake news. This started from politics.
Now the corporations are scrambling to implement it. It doesn't matter how
many alternatives to App store US has, they will all implement it. And
obviously, if a US court decides a video needs to be blocked, it will be
blocked by all corporations (likely it will be blocked globally), without
making the news. It's only news if it's Russia. You are suckered by PR if you
believe FB or any other corporation has any other principles apart from making
money.

~~~
candiodari
And it's yet another clear illustration what the whole "Fake News" effort is
about. It's not even about meddling in elections, it's making sure some rich
sleazeballs prostitute pics don't make it to their wives, or the press. And of
course, that when that does happen, "revenge" is exacted and traces of it get
removed.

------
cat199
My HN feed right this second:

    
    
        46. 	
    	Instagram submits to Russia censor's demands (bbc.com)
    	90 points by uptown 15 hours ago | flag | hide | 15 comments
        47. 	
    	Federal Judge Says Embedding a Tweet Can Be Copyright Infringement (eff.org)
    

so yeah.

and especially hilarious considering this is a request to block social media
posts which might have bearing on the election - when only a few months ago
"social media" was balking about the use of social media by foreigners to
interfere in domestic political affairs..

but I suppose 'forgone conclusion' and 'them bad us good', so obviously this
isn't a one-way door

------
peferron
Unsurprising from Facebook.

------
twelve40
While there are certainly some very sleazy rule-bending individuals involved
in this, I'm curious. The claim is that the chick recorded private
conversations and published them without getting any kind of permission, which
surely looks like a violation of privacy. In the States, can you sue someone
for recording and leaking private conversations? Can such leaked conversation
be censored by the judge, like a gag order or something?

------
krick
Apart from obvious business implications for FB, "privacy rights violation"
claims have some basis. The whole story was more about sluts, than about
"corruption" from the very beginning. Which is kinda funny to think about,
when it leads to some serious consequences, like it did.

~~~
candiodari
Privacy works with how your treatment differs from a "reasonable expectation"
of a person in your position. For a high governnent official, generally
accepted treatment is zero privacy for the person himself, unless a crime is
committed (you don't get to break in to film them, but feel free to use a zoom
lens). For their family stricter norms are usually held.

So there could not have been a reasonable expectation of privacy on the deck
of a yacht in the middle of public space in the first place.

Secondly you get to spread pictures as long as you're (reasonably) in them.

------
Dolores12
It was ordered by court to block those photos\video while case is in progress.
What is censor here?

------
Buge
Was it completely deleted or just restricted from view in Russia?

------
supergirl
this is news only because Russia. videos get removed every minute in all
countries for all kinds of reasons. why is this video any more special.

it’s also especially funny since the West now has started the war on fake news
which is by definition censoring. this is done outside of any court cases. it
is silent censoring, the best kind of censoring

~~~
LarryPage
All of your posts are yelling about Russia. Put down the vodka and get back to
work.

