AsyncAwait

You don't see the irony of censoring a leftie in a thread that complains about the right getting censored by a 'left-wing witch hunt' do you?

I have had plenty of interesting debates on here; when it comes to politics however, HN has a certain bias and an ideological blind spot. The narrative that the left is censoring everybody while you have Republican legislators passing this[1] is laughable, yet the narrative persists because it's not being challenged.

I do try to see the other side[2] when I think it makes sense. Playing victim of the left while a right-wing mob just stormed the Capitol is not one of these times, sorry.

The cynic in me thinks this is what YC wants; it promotes the sort of thinking on which VC thrives. I have little reason to believe otherwise. There's few people on HN challenging these narratives and now there's even fewer.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Anti-BDS_laws_in...

2 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25691631

The hypocrisy is that the US has and is supporting 'which hunts' all over the globe, which the right largely supports. Perhaps it's just that it's also starting to come back home now.

Funny how you suddenly supposedly have sympathy for the victims of McCarthyism while the right is still today calling anyone left of the far right a communist marxist.

I think what falls more on the left is caring that the drone strikes kill 90% civilians.

The right is much more inclined to agree with the characterization that it's mostly terrorists we're killing or that why are civilians around them.

To what some on the right might object is why are we spending all this money on this, which they might even arrive at ultimately the same conclusion as the left but for a different reason.

I haven't seen the right screaming when there's Republican legislators passing anti-BDS legislation all over. That's the purest form of censorship targeting primarily people on the left and yet crickets.

Maybe the so called free speech absolutists are not as principled as they say.

Not OP, but I'd gladly have a discussion with some coal miner who felt like politicians weren't representing him and fell for the populist rhetoric Trump would sometimes use.

The reason? I don't think that sort of person voted for Trump because of the idea of Trump or a cult of personality. They simply got duped and there are better solutions to their problems.

The folks that stormed D.C. are too far gone at this point.

I get what you're saying but the other side of the coin is maybe the society at large is rejecting them. And they need to understand that they're not guaranteed an audience, If the society at large doesn't want to listen then they'll have to sloowly try to win some support.

They seem to forget that many on the left fought tooth and nail historically for things we now consider for granted but society wasn't on board for in the past.

And maybe some ideas just aren't that appealing and they'd do better to pull other ones to advocate for.

Privacy excluded.

I feel like non encrypted messengers like Telegram/Discord/Zoom shouldn't even be in the running here as alternatives.

https://matrix.org

I am sure there'd be plenty of pundits soon enough blaming China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Syria....anything but a deep reflection upon Americans themselves.

This is a failure of leadership by the republicans - plain and simple.

The cops have a strange affinity for certain kinds of 'protesters' too, we all know it would end differently if BLM or 'Antifa' did this.

You're right. The US has a history of supporting death squads all over the world for over 70 years, longer then the Islamic Republic even exists.

The fact that ISIS celebrated his death does indicate that perhaps we acted as their air force.

The fact that they don't like or trust the US does not mean they also don't want peace. If your idea of peace however is the US antagonizing in the region, (Iran's backyard if you will) and Iran disarming and sitting on their ass watching the US surround them, without any regional allies, then no I don't think Iran is after that, I also don't think it has anything to do with wanting peace.

You do realize KSA has is hands all over 9/11 right?

It's worth noting that this was after the U.S. killed their top general illegally and they expected a strike on Iran after hitting some Iraqi bases in response to the U.S. assassination.

KSA is smart enough not to openly shout 'Death to America'.

Try imposing harsh sanctions on them, murdering their generals etc., organizing illegal coups & we'll see then.

Nor does it have a nuclear program

That's false[1].

There's little credible evidence Iran is trying to actually build a bomb.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabi...

refuses to join anti-terrorist transparency treaties

It only funds terrorists in Syria, Yemen etc. and constructs radical schools all over, being dubbed fatwa valley but nothing to see here.

That's the world we'll be at if Iran keeps being rewarded for its behaviour.

It seems to me like they tried to be constructive with the Iran Deal and got betrayed by the U.S. again. They have plenty of reason not to trust the U.S. Iran has not staged a coup in the U.S. as far as I know.

We are in a thread asserting that it's "worth noting that this is entirely the U.S. not wanting peace."

In relation to the sanctions that were imposed as part of the U.S. pulling out of the nuclear deal despite Iran complying. But of course you left that part out.

funneling arms and resources to terrorists

You do realize the U.S. does that on a regular basis right? So do its Gulf Wahhabi allies in the region.

Iran also assassinates its critics abroad, or kidnaps them for show trials

Just like the KSA does, who are apparently fine with the U.S. It's almost as if it's not really about that.

The Islamic Republic does a lot of small-scale aggression (e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters), and they lead many proxy militias. They also pursue nuclear weapons. Their handling of domestic affairs is also bullshit

The United States does all these things too, it just has nobody big enough to sanction it.

For the record, I am not a fan of the Islamist Republic, but banning access to GitHub does not punish the government, it puishes civilians. It also doesn't change the fact that it's the U.S. who pulled out of the Iran Deal or that medicine is impacted by the sanctions too.

I mean the U.S. is buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt etc. etc. the behavior you're describing is clearly not the problem here.

Note that the Advanced Protection program is opt-in for users that require the highest degree of security Google can offer. Regular users won't be impacted by this.

Yet. Google seems to be restricting Android more and more with each release.

I fully switched to the PinePhone last year because of this.

Am I naive to still hope for more peace in the world?

Worth noting that this is entirely the U.S. not wanting peace, not Iran, hence the EU disagrees with the sanctions regime.

I know, you'd consider the likes of NYT/WaPo to be 'real journalists'.

The ones that had so cozy of a relationship with the Pentagon that they saw no problem in being government mouthpieces and getting the public to support a war in Iraq that killed 200k+ people on a made up pretense of WMDs. Same for Lybia, Syria etc.?

Because that's how you get the level of government access to be what you'd consider a 'real' journalist.

I am glad that you don't get to define who makes a 'real' journalist and who doesn't. Julian is not one of these[1] indeed.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_journalism

I did address this above but you ignored it.

We're not.

And that's exactly the problem. No wonder they're still free today while Julian's not.

Leave the names of officials. Redact names your don't know

That's not as easy as it sounds. Many of the names you'd want to leave up would be of smaller generals whom you may not be familiar with. The actual shooters should perhaps also not be redacted. At least not fully.

Newspapers seem to have managed to do this just fine for ages.

They do this by being cozy with the Pentagon and asking them exactly for what WikiLeaks has asked them for. The difference is the Pentagon's not going to ignore an email from the NYT. It did ignore WikiLeaks.

Even if the US government is at fault, that still doesn't mean Wikileaks can't also be at fault. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Between the two wrongs, am going to focus on the one where the most powerful military on Earth guns down civilians & journalists. Especially given Julian has already paid dearly for exposing what we should have known. The war criminals themselves haven't spent a day behind bars.

Names of people in other countries with oppressive regimes, who passed on information on the understanding that their names would be kept confidential, no.

WikiLeaks asked for these names so they can redact them. The Pentagon refused. This is on them, as are the war crimes themselves.

He should have had the good judgment to redact all names

So how exactly are you supposed to hold officials accountable if you don't have any names to go on?

I haven't said anything at all about blame regarding anyone other than Assange

Right. That is exactly my problem. When we're talking about war criminals I'd hope the person who exposed it would be the last to get some blame in the matter.

Assange tried (at least he claims he tried) to get the US government to help him remove names that it felt should not be released. The US government refused. Which is perfectly understandable: why should the US government tell Wikileaks exactly which names in some leaked documents are the names of actual US government informants? That would be stupid.

If that's stupid then complaining asking him to redact names without telling him which ones is even more stupid and gives the U.S. no right to complain. Especially when top secret is used to conceal war crimes.

Assange then chose to release all the material anyway

Not publishing war crimes because those who commited them refuse to cooperate in redacting names would be a great way for the Pentagon to make sure their crimes stay hidden. In fact it appears that was their goal in not cooperating.

Newspapers, in the same position, did not publish the names.

Newspapers were NOT in the same position. They published the leaks but Pentagon started cooperating with them by then.

It's remarkable that people exposing war criminals get more blame that actual war criminals who did not face any consequences and laughed about while murdering civilians including journalists.