Russia Clones Wikipedia, Censors It, Bans Original (404media.co) 243
Jules Roscoe reports via 404 Media: Russia has replaced Wikipedia with a state-sponsored encyclopedia that is a clone of the original Russian Wikipedia but which conveniently has been edited to omit things that could cast the Russian government in poor light. Real Russian Wikipedia editors used to refer to the real Wikipedia as Ruwiki; the new one is called Ruviki, has "ruwiki" in its url, and has copied all Russian-language Wikipedia articles and strictly edited them to comply with Russian laws. The new articles exclude mentions of "foreign agents," the Russian government's designation for any person or entity which expresses opinions about the government and is supported, financially or otherwise, by an outside nation. [...]
Wikimedia RU, the Russian-language chapter of the non-profit that runs Wikipedia, was forced to shut down in late 2023 amid political pressure due to the Ukraine war. Vladimir Medeyko, the former head of the chapter who now runs Ruviki, told Novaya Gazeta Europe in July that he believed Wikipedia had problems with "reliability and neutrality." Medeyko first announced the project to copy and censor the 1.9 million Russian-language Wikipedia articles in June. The goal, he said at the time, was to edit them so that the information would be "trustworthy" as a source for all Russian users. Independent outlet Bumaga reported in August that around 110 articles about the war in Ukraine were missing in full, while others were severely edited. Ruviki also excludes articles about reports of torture in prisons and scandals of Russian government representatives. [...]
Graphic designer Constantine Konovalov calculated the number of characters changed between Wikipedia RU and Ruviki articles on the same topics, and found that there were 205,000 changes in articles about freedom of speech; 158,000 changes in articles about human rights; 96,000 changes in articles about political prisoners; and 71,000 changes in articles about censorship in Russia. He wrote in a post on X that the censorship was "straight out of a 1984 novel." Interestingly, the Ruviki article about George Orwell's 1984 entirely omits the Ministry of Truth, which is the novel's main propaganda outlet concerned with governing "truth" in the country.
Wikimedia RU, the Russian-language chapter of the non-profit that runs Wikipedia, was forced to shut down in late 2023 amid political pressure due to the Ukraine war. Vladimir Medeyko, the former head of the chapter who now runs Ruviki, told Novaya Gazeta Europe in July that he believed Wikipedia had problems with "reliability and neutrality." Medeyko first announced the project to copy and censor the 1.9 million Russian-language Wikipedia articles in June. The goal, he said at the time, was to edit them so that the information would be "trustworthy" as a source for all Russian users. Independent outlet Bumaga reported in August that around 110 articles about the war in Ukraine were missing in full, while others were severely edited. Ruviki also excludes articles about reports of torture in prisons and scandals of Russian government representatives. [...]
Graphic designer Constantine Konovalov calculated the number of characters changed between Wikipedia RU and Ruviki articles on the same topics, and found that there were 205,000 changes in articles about freedom of speech; 158,000 changes in articles about human rights; 96,000 changes in articles about political prisoners; and 71,000 changes in articles about censorship in Russia. He wrote in a post on X that the censorship was "straight out of a 1984 novel." Interestingly, the Ruviki article about George Orwell's 1984 entirely omits the Ministry of Truth, which is the novel's main propaganda outlet concerned with governing "truth" in the country.
Cassandra complex (Score:5, Interesting)
"1984", after being un-banned in 1988, became the most popular book in 2022 (about the time of the Ukrainian invasion), so the people who want the truth already have it. To them, it's probably a story about the Cassandra Complex: The futility of knowing the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Not "Russia", the russian federation (Score:5, Insightful)
Russia lapsed in 1922 when it merged itself into the USSR. The mold that grew up on the remnants of the former RSFSR isn't Russia, it is a failed attempt at Soviet Union 2.0.
I would be very surprised if it turns out better than the original.
Re:Not "Russia", the russian federation (Score:5, Informative)
Better than the USSR is a pretty low bar. Would Putin even make the front cover of "fascist dictator monthly" magazine? He's hardly killed anyone compared to Stalin.
Re:Not "Russia", the russian federation (Score:4, Informative)
The amount of his political prisoners beats every soviet ruler except stalin, though.
Re: (Score:2)
True. He's giving it the old college try.
Re: (Score:2)
To quote the protagonist himself, "we haven't even started yet".
Re: (Score:2)
Second time might be a charm, though. Or not. First attempt was based on Bolshevik communism, second attempt will be based on Chinese-type pseudo-"communism" (state-monopolistic capitalism in disguise). Authoritarianism will be the same as the original, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a proverb in that territory, which is very relevant, we tried to do it better, but it turned out as usual.
Re: (Score:2)
An astute observation from Chernomyrdin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not "Russia", the russian federation (Score:5, Informative)
"Didn't really fail" in what sense, dear? The Soviet Union, with all its "power", wasn't able even to feed itself.
Re:Not "Russia", the russian federation (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not "Russia", the russian federation (Score:5, Insightful)
People who blame reality for failing to conform to their plans add nothing to the world.
That wasn't communism, it was fascism (Score:3)
Re:Not "Russia", the russian federation (Score:5, Informative)
Au contraire, famines were pretty much a feature of the Soviet Union when it was "exporting revolution" and not importing food from the West.
First came the famines during the era of Military Communism and Civil war - that's between 1918 and 1922. These weren't technically "Soviet Union", as it wasn't formally declared then, but they were Soviet by genesis.
Then there was the Golodomor in Ukraine.
Then there were the post-war famines.
Then SU started importing grain :)
Re: (Score:3)
Stalin fervently believed in certain socialist ideas, as well as believing everything the loyal Lysenko told him, and forcibly put into plan a revolutionary system for agriculture. But because Stalin and Lysenko were morons, this failed badly and caused famines. Because this was done by force means Stalin was criminal in this and not merely a bumbling idiot.
Re:Not "Russia", the russian federation (Score:5, Informative)
Hmmmm, really?
Remind me again, which "revolution" or "war" was going on during the Golodomor years? That would be early 1930s.
Which "revolution" or "war" was happening in 47-48?
Re:Not "Russia", the russian federation (Score:5, Insightful)
FYI, WWI ended in 1918, and the "revolution" and the "civil war" ended in 1922. Two five-year plans later, Comrade, SU organized themselves one of the worst famines that territory has ever seen.
Ditto for the 47-48 one, plus let us not forget it happened after the plunder of all occupied Eastern Europe.
The verdict is simple: SU could not feed itself. Not without the West anyway.
Another funny fact: judging from the situation the agricultural sector in putin's "federation" is at the moment, the new Soviet Union will have the same kind of problems soon as well ;)
Re:Not "Russia", the russian federation (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, yeah, it is all lies and propaganda, in reality the Soviet Union and North Korea were - and North Korea still is - flowering gifts of humanity and prosperity :)
Re: (Score:2)
Just give it up, sovkodrocher-kun. You're persisting, but not convincing anybody :)
Re:Not "Russia", the russian federation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not "Russia", the russian federation (Score:4, Interesting)
The very fact that they would break all supply chains at the same time to implement a new system is precisely why the USSR failed. It like to go all fanboy for new ideas without attributing more than three braincells for longer than a femtosecond to what the fallout of their actions might be.
Chernobyl, Holodomor and many more examples to pick from.
Re:Not "Russia", the russian federation (Score:4, Interesting)
LOL, no, the Soviet Union subsisted on imports of US grain for most of the "Zastoy" period (the Stagnation Era), that is, for most of Brezhnev's rule.
To put this in context, that's also the time of the oil shock, when the Soviet Union got a shit-ton of a windfall of oil/gas money because of the OPEC oil crisis, that is, the time when the Soviet Union was in its "best" condition.
Re:Not "Russia", the russian federation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Must be Aztec tobacco, or, as they used to call it in the Soviet Union, makhorka.
Re: (Score:2)
Soviet foreign trade, except for oil and gas in the later years of the empire, was insignificant, and whatever they produced in reality, and not in their largely faked statistical reports wasn't enough to feed them.
The "modern" federation can feed itself only because its agriculture is completely dependent on imported Western technology and know-how, from equipment and organization to seeds.
We will see how it fares now that is in on its own.
Re: (Score:2)
The wheat seeds are not imported. They produce their own fertilizer. And they build their own tractors and harvesting machines.
The Russians import seeds for other crops, like sugar beets, which traditionally were not grown in Russia. The Soviet Union used to import sugar cane from Cuba in exchange for oil and timber. The Soviets did not grow sugar beets.
They are quite dependent on imported farm animals. Like chicken eggs, or bovine cattle. They are increasing milk production but this is done with imported c
Re: (Score:2)
We will see how it fares now that is in on its own.
It will fail, just as it is intended to fail.
After you notice for the first time that Putin looks at Kim with envy and not the other way around, everything that has happened in Russia since the attack on Ukraine starts to make perfect sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Name checks out. You're looney.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, cuz the U.S.S.R. gave up all its satellite puppet states out of the kindness of it's large heart.
Also why Putin had to stage two coups to put remnants of the KGB back in power, and then only under a new name.
And why organized crime filled that non-existent power gap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely looney.
Re:Not "Russia", the russian federation (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, because the KGB was so intent on preventing organized crime when it was in its heyday. Rather, it WAS organized crime. When the new rulers took over, they took offense and paying these schmucks. So the KGB operatives simply moved their criminal businesses to the private sector. Then Putin came along and decided they could help run his new kleptocracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Try asking any person who lived in Russia before 1990 instead of reading the Russian Wikipedia for your daily dose of Pravda. Long queues before empty stores, waitlists to buy a car, no free press, and all they could do with their excess grain was make vodka of it.
Re:Not "Russia", the russian federation (Score:5, Informative)
Putin didn't stage coups to solidify his power.
Putin staged bombings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Russian_apartment_bombings) and started a war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War) to do that.
The rossyan federation then saw an unexpected economic boom as a result of the high oil prices in the 00s (thank you, Dubbya). But people were dissatisfied with the lawlessness and the growth of inequality, so protests became stronger and stronger.
To boost the morale (and test the waters as to how rossyan aggression will fare with the West), putin invaded Georgia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War)
That didn't really pacify the situation at home, as corruption became more and more rampant and institutionalized under putin's party, and as political prosecution increased and murders of putin's opponents grew more and more outrageous. The dissatisfaction exploded in 2011-2012.
So putin, convinced that the west will do nothing, invaded Crimea and rode a wave of "patriotism". He wasn't fully wrong, and he wasn't fully right.
The 2022 war was supposed to be a continuation of that "victorious" plan of the 5-dimensional chess player in the Kremlin, but alas, Ukraine turned out to be a much harder candy than the putinists expected.
So the failed blitzkrieg plan was changed in stride into a long-term war, in the hope that "the West will tire and give up".
And we are where we are.
Re: (Score:2)
I did say coups, but it's good that you're spreading the actual history instead of Kremlin propaganda. I had read all that before, though.
In the free world, none of this is controversial or in doubt. It's just history.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, you're right - Putin committed an "autocoup" (or a self-coup), as it is apparently called [wikipedia.org], snatching the power unconstitutionally twice.
Once when he traded place with Mr. "Conquer a large Finlandia every night" Medvedev, and then in 2020, when he "zeroed" the number of terms he served so that he could "run legally" earlier this year.
Like you say, it is just history.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean you've never heard about the "Ryazan sugar" affair? Come on, even Zhirinovsky asked about it during a plenary session of the State Duma before his mike was turned off.
Here, in your native tongue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And don't tell me it was a question about "another explosion", as the new rossyan wikipedia says, ok? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah? Was it also organized by the KGB? What have you heard about it in Moscow, comrade?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me, were CIA employees apprehended on 9/11 at the crime scene red-handed? I don't recall such an episode.
This is very much unlike the Ryazan episode, where FSB officers were caught by the local police in a basement with bags of RDX and were then spirited away by something very much like a divine intervention - by a phone call from a certain bloke who was called "Platonovich" IIRC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Extra looney. Orc.
Re:Not "Russia", the russian federation (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not "Russia", the russian federation (Score:5, Insightful)
When people risk their lives trying to break out of your country, your country is a failure.
When people risk their lives trying to break into your country, your country is a success.
It really is as simple as that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your "voluntary teardown" is nothing more than the Soviets admitting that their country was failing. One doesnt tear everything down and rebuild because what's being done is working out well.
As for the rest of your post, I look forward to seeing what happens in Russia when Putin dies someday. Maybe you people will get a return to that brief and precious moment that was squandered when you were able to choose your own government for yourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're obsessing with Putin too much. He's as much of a westernizer as Yeltsin. He only got in conflict with actual west because they betrayed him.
I assume you're pedaling the typical nonsense that the eastern expansion of NATO was somehow the West betraying Russia. Not only is NATO a defensive pact only, thus not a threat to Russia if it stays within its borders but there was never any signed agreement that NATO wouldnt expand east. That's a fiction peddled by Putin to justify his anti-western stance but feel free to cite the treaty that forbids NATO eastern expansion if I'm wrong.
If you think that anything western-aligned has a slight chance of winning in fair democratic elections then you're wrong.
Russians loved the West during their brief period of democracy in the
Re: (Score:3)
Soviet Union itself didn't even really fail
Suuuure, because Soviet economy in the 1970s and 1980s was sooooo robust and progressive. Totally wouldn't have failed on its own, nope, no siree.
Re: (Score:2)
Suuuure, because Soviet economy in the 1970s and 1980s was sooooo robust and progressive. Totally wouldn't have failed on its own, nope, no siree.
And to further the point, the expansion of the Soviet economy in the 1950s and 1960s was built on the back of a series of slave labor camps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
My father in law knew someone from Poland whose father was sent to a camp. Some police showed up at their apartment one morning, told him "You're under arrest," and he was immediately put on a train with a few hundred other "prisoners," shipped off to the middle of nowhere in Russia to work in a car parts factory for five years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Soviet Union itself didn't even really fail.
Depends on what you mean by fail.
Fail in the sense of being a superpower? It didn't fail in that. It was indeed a superpower, with an extensive sphere of influence and was feared and respected. So if your criteria of success is being a superpower, then indeed, there was work from within to break that status.
Fail in the sense of rising its population's standard of living all the way to that of first world countries? Well, for the first 30 years or so it didn't fail at all, quite the opposite, it was a remark
That’s no religion. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Orwell, on being a Historian Prophet)”Oh for fucks sake, it was supposed to be a work of fiction. Not a bible, you idiots.”
China did the same (Score:2)
Yes, well... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is of course different if its done by a state agent acting on behalf of state censorship.
But Wikipedia in English is heavily censored and rewritten by activists, presumably acting as individuals or loose associations of them. Try expressing sketpicism on Wikipedia about whether there is a climate emergency and whether wind and solar are the solution, or part of it. If your entry lasts 24 hours that will be a miracle. So don't get too enthusiastic and complacent about the English version either.
As for the impulse to censor (and indeed criminalize) speech, the recent tendency in the English speaking world to criminalize something called 'hate speech' has quite strikingly, as expected, moved increasingly into attempts to criminalize dissent from a given approved line.
The latest and most striking example of this is the Scottish Hate Crime and Public Order Act. The Scottish government's own account of this is that
"New measures to tackle the harm caused by hatred and prejudice come into force today".
You notice the objective: to tackle the harm caused by hatred and prejudice. Not to tackle the harm that can be done from acting on hatred and prejudice, the aim is not to penalize that. Its to tackle the thing itself, hatred. Also prejudice. Good luck with that!
There is a BBC summary here, pretty reasonable account:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art... [bbc.co.uk]
The result of this was that the day it came into force, the calls starting coming in, and in the first week reached 8,000.
The question of course is what is "hatred and prejudice". In Scotland it appears to include doubting that men can be turned into women. In English universities it can apparently include expressing skepticism about veganism while on the phone in one's own room, but unknowingly being overheard from the room next door:
https://freespeechunion.org/un... [freespeechunion.org]
In the English speaking world we do not have the kind of officially sanctioned censorship and penalization of some kinds of speech that the post cites in Russia. There is of course something similar in China. And in the US at least there is the Consititutional protection of the First Amendment.
But a similar role is being played now by the small army of zealots in the English speaking countries who define disagreement as hate, and vilify and target anyone publicly dissenting from the party line. And by 'target' is meant attempts to drive people out of their place of employment (the Guardian is notorious for this) or calling the police who then will record the accusation as a non-criminal hate incident.
Harry Miller for instance (obviously a Monty Python fan) received such a visit after tweeting:
âoeI was assigned Mammal at Birth, but my orientation is Fish. Donâ(TM)t mis species me.â Miller also tweeted: âoeTranswomen are women. Anyone know where this new biological classification was first proposed and adopted?â. He later wrote that the statement was âoebollocksâ."
https://www.theguardian.com/so... [theguardian.com]
So don't sit there reading about barbaric and authoritarian Russia and think that everything in the West is hunky dory. It isn't. It happens through different mechanisms, but it still is happening.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But Wikipedia in English is heavily censored and rewritten by activists, presumably acting as individuals or loose associations of them. Try expressing sketpicism on Wikipedia about whether there is a climate emergency and whether wind and solar are the solution, or part of it. If your entry lasts 24 hours that will be a miracle. So don't get too enthusiastic and complacent about the English version either.
Note that Wikipedia is a private organization with its own rules, and happens to be leftist-liberal-oriented, in MAGA parlance. Nobody stops you from making your own copy of Wikipedia with your own theories about climate change included.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Yes, well... (Score:2)
I'd love to see it for the lulz. The Earth being only 6000 years old, Jesus was white, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Poe's law my man. It's real. It's all real.
https://www.conservapedia.com/... [conservapedia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's real. It's a treat, you should definitely check it out.
Poe's Law REALLY is strong in that one.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nobody stops you from making your own copy of Wikipedia with your own theories about climate change"
I think you're missing the point. The aim to prevent or deter the expression of some ideas is widespread in the West. It also is increasingly successful in recent decades. How this aim is realized, who has the aim and the power to realize it, are different in Western societies because their institutions are different, and so the aim is tried for and achieved in different ways.
When looking at societies its
Re: (Score:2)
>"Note that Wikipedia is a private organization with its own rules, "
True. Now imagine how much even worse sites like this would be with the government stepping in to declare what is "truth" or not. Well, we don't have to imagine it, Russia is a perfect example.
>"and happens to be leftist-liberal-oriented"
Leftist, yes.
Liberal, not really. True [classical] liberals would welcome and expose all sides of arguments and having such arguments. That no longer really occurs on Wikipedia. Just about every
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately for the MAGAs, truth has a liberal bias
Re: (Score:3)
> Try expressing sketpicism on Wikipedia
You're doing it wrong if that's what you're trying to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is the west perfect? No! There is plenty to improve.
Try living in Russia and telling Putin how he's doing badly. You might find yourself accidently falling out of a very high window twice just to be sure.
Pretty big difference IMO
anyhow, I see your quoted a source which quoted the Torygraph, the daily fail and the one even worse, GB News. That had about as much veracity as saying "so the angry bigot down the pub told me".
Is it true? Maybe, maybe not, but so far there's no evidence or credible source. Maybe y
Re: (Score:2)
Old joke: Freedom of speech is the same in Moscow and Washington. In both places you can go into the marketplace and yell at the top of your lungs "The US president is a moron" without getting arrested.
Re: Yes, well... (Score:3)
Wikipedia does not claim that wind and solar are the sole solutions to climate change, a thing youâ(TM)ve made up in your head. They also have plenty of information about climate change denialism, while noting that there is a near complete lack of scientific evidence supporting their viewpoint. Itâ(TM)s an encyclopedia after all, not a catalog of gut feelings.
Re: (Score:2)
Try expressing sketpicism on Wikipedia
Skepticism in the old fashion sense or in the "I heard on YouTube and Xitter that it's totally different and they don't let me say it" sense?
Re:Yes, well... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is of course different if its done by a state agent acting on behalf of state censorship.
But Wikipedia in English is heavily censored and rewritten by activists, presumably acting as individuals or loose associations of them. Try expressing sketpicism on Wikipedia about whether there is a climate emergency and whether wind and solar are the solution, or part of it. If your entry lasts 24 hours that will be a miracle. So don't get too enthusiastic and complacent about the English version either.
So Wikipedia editors not entertaining your alternative science is totally like censorship by a fascist dictator.
The Scottish government's own account of this is that
"New measures to tackle the harm caused by hatred and prejudice come into force today".
You notice the objective: to tackle the harm caused by hatred and prejudice. Not to tackle the harm that can be done from acting on hatred and prejudice, the aim is not to penalize that. Its to tackle the thing itself, hatred. Also prejudice. Good luck with that!
I agree that hate speech laws can go overboard, though you're looking at a bunch of outlier incidents.
The question of course is what is "hatred and prejudice". In Scotland it appears to include doubting that men can be turned into women. In English universities it can apparently include expressing skepticism about veganism while on the phone in one's own room, but unknowingly being overheard from the room next door:
Sounds messed up but all we have is the student's account and nothing from the University.
And by 'target' is meant attempts to drive people out of their place of employment (the Guardian is notorious for this) or calling the police who then will record the accusation as a non-criminal hate incident.
Harry Miller for instance (obviously a Monty Python fan) received such a visit after tweeting:
âoeI was assigned Mammal at Birth, but my orientation is Fish. Donâ(TM)t mis species me.â Miller also tweeted: âoeTranswomen are women. Anyone know where this new biological classification was first proposed and adopted?â. He later wrote that the statement was âoebollocksâ."
https://www.theguardian.com/so... [theguardian.com]
From your link:
Police officers unlawfully interfered with a man’s right to freedom of expression by turning up at his place of work to speak to him about allegedly “transphobic” tweets, the high court has ruled.
So your example is literally the courts saying the police were out of bounds.
So don't sit there reading about barbaric and authoritarian Russia and think that everything in the West is hunky dory. It isn't. It happens through different mechanisms, but it still is happening.
Yeah, the hate speech laws can go too far. But HOLY SHIT IT'S WAY WORSE IN RUSSIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm waiting for your followup post where you use a story about someone's gunshot wound to complain about your splinter.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as "everywhere" is defined as "places that don't consider Russia either the scourge of the earth or a useful and desperate piggy bank", i.e. Belarus and North Korea, well, it's true.
So what does Ruviki say... (Score:3)
... about the invention of quatro-triticale?
Fascists gonna fascist (Score:5, Insightful)
*shrugs* Minor inconvenience on the road to WW3 just because another small man wants to feel big.
Clone Russia and only invite the fake to the UN. (Score:3)
It's not even a real nation, just a Muscovite empire. That one single city has inflicted unimaginable horror in all directions for over a century.
Shut it off from the world with the sole criterion for ending it being the dissolution of the Russian Federation.
Re:Clone Russia and only invite the fake to the UN (Score:4, Interesting)
Technically, Russia should not be a permanent member of the security council. The last USSR member to leave the union was not Russia, it was Kazakhstan. So, actually, Kazakhstan should be the successor to all things USSR, including the permanent seat on the security council of the UN.
it's really no different here (Score:4, Interesting)
here the upper class just bought up all the newspapers and now we only see classist articles
how is it any different? the rich and powerful are making the rules
welcome to our plutocracy
The article makes a false impression (Score:5, Informative)
a) Wikipedia still works in Russia and people actively use it
b) Very few in Russia know about Ruvki
TikTok (Score:2)
US Clones TikTok, Censors It, Bans Original. (Score:3)
Just writing headlines for the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Do we really have to clone it first?
I mean, really, do we?
Can users still edit the new version? (Score:2)
Dire Portent (Score:2)
"Ignorance is king. Many would not profit by his abdication. Many enrich themselves by means of his dark monarchy. They are his Court, and in his name they defraud and govern, enrich themselves and perpetuate their power. Even literacy they fear, for the written word is another channel of communication that might cause their enemies to become united. Their weapons are keen-honed, and they use them with skill. They will press the battle upon the world when their interests are threatened, and the violence whi
Re:good on them (Score:5, Interesting)
No "Western country" engages in Internet censorship of such magnitude, except Turkey, if you even can count it as a "Western country". So drop your whataboutism.
Re: good on them (Score:2)
And a member of the EU. It's difficult to fit Turkiye in the category of being a Western nation despite the technical reasons to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Turkey isn't a member of the EU. It's been a candidate for 25 years, but it's a long way from concluding accession negotiations.
Re: (Score:2)
And a member of the EU.
It is not.
And as long as that Turkey is running the show there, there's a snowball in hell chance that this would change.
Re: (Score:2)
And a member of the EU. It's difficult to fit Turkiye in the category of being a Western nation despite the technical reasons to do so.
It is not a member of the EU, and very unlikely to become one for the foreseeable future. It is also not a Western country and never will be, for as long as it exists as a political entity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Take something useful, de-shittify it, make it available.
And before anyone cries censorship, you might want to look at your own regime's censorship first
Let us know when reporters are sent to jail for reporting on the abysmal state of one's armed forces who can't even make it to your neighbor's capital in two weeks.
Hans Kristian Graebener = StoneToss
Re: (Score:2)
Are you getting paid to write crap like that? Or are you just a "useful idiot"?
Re: (Score:2)
More and more, there isn't even one side good in those either-or questions...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, hard as it is to accept, some people are just crap with no redeeming features.
Re: (Score:2)
The Putin regime deshittitying it? Aaaaahahahaha
Tell me, are you actually amused by the insane propaganda or do you actually believe it? It's ok you can tell me, you'll get paid the same either way
Jesus Christ (Score:2)
Russia is one of the biggest shitholes on the planet. I'd blow my brains out if I lived there.
Re: (Score:2)
If you got more zingers like that, you might have a gig in Vegas.
Provided you get out of Russia first, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
He could no longer be the Annoying Orange if he didn't.