this post was submitted on 18 May 2024
153 points (98.7% liked)

World News

36911 readers
576 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I predict similar results in the US. Proton is gonna be happy.

[–] jmp242@sopuli.xyz 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's fascinating how normies will figure out a VPN to use shitty social media but not figure out more open systems or alternative sites.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's the open tiktok alternative? Many tiktok users would love an open platform as an alternative to tiktok.

[–] toastal@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right? They realized the power that be, corporations or governments, can take away any service at any time, & look for the loophole to access the service instead of the loophole to the entire centralized system …especially considering those powers can take down the VPNs too. Duct tape thinking.

[–] Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Video hosting is not cheap

[–] zewm@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This entire article just reads like a Proton VPN advertisement.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 5 points 1 year ago

It seems to be.

[–] hackerwacker@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"This is an unprecedented move in Western democracies to block specific Internet sites—and is a worrying progression that they are flirting with the idea of censoring the Internet as a means of crowd control," Proton VPN's spokesperson told me.

It's really not. For example the UK has blocked rt.com for years now, and many other sites.

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Except by your own argument it really is. The UK has blocked many sites for many reasons. However, none of those reasons are for crowd control. Your example is ironically proof of the statement. This is the first time a western nation has banned media for the explicit purpose of quelling a protest and suppressing speech. Your example is a government banning a site not to quell a protest or to suppress speech, but instead because of a governmental disagreement between two nations. Now which one you think is valid for suppressing speech is a totally different question, only that they are two separate and completely different reasons.

[–] hackerwacker@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

This is an unprecedented move in Western democracies to block specific Internet sites

Claim 1

and is a worrying progression that they are flirting with the idea of censoring the Internet as a means of crowd control

Claim 2

I'm talking about claim 1

Hope you get help with your reading comprehension problems.

[–] Link@rentadrunk.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

RT.com is not blocked in the UK.

[–] hackerwacker@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago
[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

How's the development of that fediverse tik tok going?