undefined | Better HN

0 pointsFunnyUsername2mo ago0 comments

1. It's pretty much the same - no press in dangerous areas unless invited and escorted by the military. The only major difference is that Ukraine is >1000x larger, and has safe areas far from any fighting where such press restrictions aren't needed.

2. You're making a bunch of separate accusations without connecting them to the topic at hand, which was press restrictions.

0 comments

Cyph0n2mo ago

No, they’re not the same, and (2) is very relevant.

Let me reiterate: Ukraine is a sovereign nation with a sovereign military that has the ability to enforce restrictions within its own territory.

To bring your bad analogy more in line with reality on the ground, imagine if Ukraine was still part of/occupied by the USSR/Russia, and Russia enforced press restrictions across all of Ukrainian territory during a Ukrainian insurgency. However, in this theoretical USSR, Ukrainians did not get Soviet citizenship, and were under a total blockade.

> The only major difference is that Ukraine is >1000x larger, and has safe areas far from any fighting where such press restrictions aren't needed.

But Israel never allowed press into the strip, even during “ceasefire” periods - like right now! This implies that Israel is not somehow paternalistically concerned for press safety; it simply wants a media blackout.

So no, this “major difference” is irrelevant when comparing restrictions between the two conflicts.

FunnyUsernameOP2mo ago

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Universally, modern militaries don't like journalists wandering around near their assets.

> and Russia enforced press restrictions across all of Ukrainian territory

Your analogy isn't very different from reality. Russia does enforce press restrictions near military assets, including in occupied parts of Ukraine.

> However, in this theoretical USSR, Ukrainians did not get Soviet citizenship, and were under a total blockade.

That would seem very unfair, if Russia did it just because they're mean and not because this hypothetical Ukraine had launched tens of thousands of rockets at them. But I'm not sure what it has to do with press restrictions.

> even during “ceasefire” periods

The ceasefire was pretty much dead once Hamas attacked IDF soldiers in Rafah. Now it's just a lower-intensity conflict. Still not a great idea to have random journalists waltzing around and tweeting photos of military assets.

> it simply wants a media blackout

This is a funny explanation because there are millions of cameras in Gaza anyway, and this is the second most covered conflict (by metrics like article count) in all of human history. Not much of a "blackout" at all.

Cyph0n2mo ago

Alright, your good faith arguments have convinced me! To summarize:

On one side, two sovereign nations setting press restrictions in areas they control. Standard stuff.

On the other side, a genocidal state blockading a tiny strip of land for 20 years waging a campaign that has killed & maimed so many children that we have lost count unilaterally enforcing a total international media blackout. Also standard stuff.

Silly me, how could I even argue about this? It’s just so damn obvious! Sometimes, arguing with random anons on HN pays off :)

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

Cyph0n2mo ago

No, they’re not the same, and (2) is very relevant.

Let me reiterate: Ukraine is a sovereign nation with a sovereign military that has the ability to enforce restrictions within its own territory.

> The only major difference is that Ukraine is >1000x larger, and has safe areas far from any fighting where such press restrictions aren't needed.

So no, this “major difference” is irrelevant when comparing restrictions between the two conflicts.

FunnyUsernameOP2mo ago

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Universally, modern militaries don't like journalists wandering around near their assets.

> and Russia enforced press restrictions across all of Ukrainian territory

Your analogy isn't very different from reality. Russia does enforce press restrictions near military assets, including in occupied parts of Ukraine.

> However, in this theoretical USSR, Ukrainians did not get Soviet citizenship, and were under a total blockade.

> even during “ceasefire” periods

> it simply wants a media blackout

Cyph0n2mo ago

Alright, your good faith arguments have convinced me! To summarize:

On one side, two sovereign nations setting press restrictions in areas they control. Standard stuff.

Silly me, how could I even argue about this? It’s just so damn obvious! Sometimes, arguing with random anons on HN pays off :)

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse