[HN Gopher] Banned journalism housed in virtual Minecraft archit... ___________________________________________________________________ Banned journalism housed in virtual Minecraft architecture (2022) Author : cratermoon Score : 163 points Date : 2023-07-20 15:32 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (99percentinvisible.org) (TXT) w3m dump (99percentinvisible.org) | [deleted] | mcpackieh wrote: | I visited this server a year or two ago and tbqh I think it's | more about the library building (a very large and impressive | build) then the contents of the library. The library building so | so huge you can spend several minutes walking from one book to | the other. If it were just about distributing the books through | minecraft they could have created a much more compact library | where all the books are within convenient reaching distance. | | Basically it's more of an art installation than it is a serious | censorship circumvention tool. Still neat for what it is I guess. | [deleted] | last_responder wrote: | >Basically it's more of an art installation than it is a | serious censorship circumvention tool. Still neat for what it | is I guess. | | Why cant it be both? | hot_gril wrote: | Reminds me of the UC Berkeley Minecraft server, where they | recreated the entire campus during the boredom of 2020. Maybe | they could put real books inside Main Stacks. | [deleted] | ninja-ninja wrote: | the weirdest title in the history of time | peepeepoopoo20 wrote: | [flagged] | LoganDark wrote: | the sheer overuse of scare-quotes in this article turned me away | from it almost immediately. do you really have to quote the word | 'items' as if it's that much of a foreign, unprecedented concept | verall wrote: | It's just distinguishing what is in-game for legacy audiences | it's not scaring anybody | LoganDark wrote: | > it's not scaring anybody | | i don't use the term 'scare-quotes' to mean "to scare | people", but rather because that's actually what the practice | is called | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes | verall wrote: | I know what a scare quote is, and their implication could | be to "scare" like calling someone "an artist" or saying | that you made a "good comment". | | But the article isn't trying to imply skepticism or | disclaim particular words, it's just trying to distinguish | what is in-game for people who don't know what minecraft | is. | LoganDark wrote: | maybe it was slightly too subtle for me to have used | single quotes in my comment and not pointed it out. in | this case they would have been more appropriate | | it's entirely likely this was just a formatting mistake, | but it still feels "off" enough for me to get | uncomfortable and stop reading | pessimizer wrote: | If you're using the word 'item' to describe a data | structure in minecraft, you're not using it in the | traditional way, you're using it in a technical way. | LoganDark wrote: | i think it's perfectly reasonable for them to have used | double-quotes for 'chests' because that _is_ a very | gaming-specific item (perhaps not minecraft-specific- | _looks at every dungeon crawler_ ). | | however, something being a data structure or not doesn't | really matter when 'items' means exactly what you would | expect it to mean within minecraft, especially when said | item is a book! | hot_gril wrote: | People who don't play video games don't know what an item is in | a video game. | londonReed wrote: | Really? I have a hard time believing that. The concept has | been around since the 80's, if not before then. Should we be | putting scare quotes around the word "Mouse" when we use it | to refer to a computer mouse because it's not a literal | animal mouse? | hot_gril wrote: | There are probably way more people familiar with computer | mice than video games. | LoganDark wrote: | that's like saying people who don't use computers won't | understand that text is in a computer even though it has the | same meaning as, say, text in a book | hot_gril wrote: | Item in plain English means basically anything that can be | counted, usually something small. Item in a video game | usually means something players can pick up, maybe use, and | drop, as opposed to something that's part of the | environment. Item in Minecraft has a technical meaning, | basically anything that can go into a hopper inventory, as | opposed to particles, blocks, mobs, stuck arrows, other | entities... | LoganDark wrote: | saying there is an item called a book in minecraft will | not go over the average person's head | tivert wrote: | > "The criteria for inclusion is handled by Reporters Without | Borders, which ensures the library's content is accurate, | truthful, and sensitive," reports Cian Mahar. | | Whenever I see a project like this, I have to ask: what kinds of | true things are censored from the "uncensored library"? | | > But even where almost all media is blocked or controlled, the | world's most successful computer game is still accessible. | Reporters Without Borders (RSF) uses this loophole to bypass | internet censorship to bring back the truth - within Minecraft." | | For how long? They used to say the same thing about the internet | itself. | hot_gril wrote: | At least now a country has to ban Minecraft to ban those books, | or force MC to drop its encryption and invent a very obscure | Minecraft packet inspection technique that players will more | easily circumvent some other way. | gorwell wrote: | "sensitive" as a criteria is a dead giveaway they are censors | advertising themselves as the opposite. It's an evolved brand | of censor; like some types of predator snakes that have evolved | to mimic its harmless prey. | anigbrowl wrote: | Feel free to back up this assertion with examples. I hope | you'll come back with something better than 'I couldn't find | anything about Hunter Biden's laptop.' | gorwell wrote: | Feel free to explain why an "uncensored library" would have | this criteria. | itronitron wrote: | time and money | LoganDark wrote: | having criteria for inclusion is not censorship | DinoDad13 wrote: | that's all moderation | LoganDark wrote: | i fail to explain how they differ so you are probably | right | tivert wrote: | > having criteria for inclusion is not censorship | | So if the State of Florida sets a criteria for inclusion | for it's library collections of "not gay," then it's not | censorship in your mind? | | "Criteria for inclusion" and "censorship" are the _exact | same thing_ , the only difference between them is how the | _speaker_ feels about it. | LoganDark wrote: | i'm not performing censorship by selecting which files i | download from the internet, am i? | | > "Criteria for inclusion" and "censorship" are the exact | same thing, the only difference between them is how the | speaker feels about it. | | yes, this is very important, which is exactly why a | library like this selecting which works to include is not | censorship. now if people intentionally submitted their | own works and the library tried to hide or deny the | existence of those requests, now that would be censorship | | i think state libraries are in a slightly different | situation. it is definitely fuzzy though | tivert wrote: | > i'm not performing censorship by selecting which files | i download from the internet, am i? | | Yes, because that's an irrelevant activity to this topic. | | > yes, this is very important, which is exactly why a | library like this selecting which works to include is not | censorship. | | At least in contemporary liberal culture, words like | "censorship" and "ban" are frequently used to label | "criteria for inclusion" that the speaker disagrees with. | | > now if people intentionally submitted their own works | and the library tried to hide or deny the existence of | those requests, now that would be censorship | | That's _one kind_ of censorship, but not the only kind | (see above). | pessimizer wrote: | Are you sure? Doesn't it depend on the criteria? What if | my criteria is that the author not be Catholic, or that | they aren't competing with my son in the pork industry? | LoganDark wrote: | that depends on whether your definition of censorship is | the prevention of speech or prevention of _dissemination_ | of speech, whether books count as speech, whether | choosing to include existing books in a library counts as | speech | | i think it's fairly common knowledge that preventing the | publishing of a book in the first place probably counts | as censorship, but considering the nature of this library | it becomes pretty fuzzy | anigbrowl wrote: | You made the claim. I suggest you back it up instead of | trying to redirect. Lots of propaganda tries to wrap | itself in the moral mantle of journalism, I am fine with | the curators being somewhat opinionated. | Levitz wrote: | Do you require examples of this library specifically or | general examples of this happening? | | If you are ok with general, the cases of Monkeypox not that | long ago are an evident example. The reality of the matter | is that it affected almost exclusively homosexual men, yet | since that would have hurt LGBT sensitivities, it was often | omitted and even campaigned against. | dmbche wrote: | Spent a few minutes looking into "monkeypox" | | It's a illness coming from a virus. | | Don't understand why homosexuals are related in any way | to censorship here.... | | (Edit: for anyone interested : https://glaad.org/mpox/ | | The censoring is nowhere to be seen | | Edit2:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/16/opinion/gay-men- | mpox.html | | Like what do you even mean? What was censored? ) | | Maybe find a solid example? | pessimizer wrote: | > I hope you'll come back with something better than 'I | couldn't find anything about Hunter Biden's laptop.' | | Why wouldn't that be good enough? | dmbche wrote: | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_contr | ove... | | How is something that has a wikipedia page censored in | any way? | brightlancer wrote: | Exactly. Where is the line between "curation" (or "moderation" | in discussions) and "censorship"? If the line is subjective, | how do we handle disagreements on that? | | Even supposed objective measurements such as "Is this factually | true?" can fail because we aren't omniscient, we learn new | things and realize what was "true" yesterday is actually false, | and sometimes an authority keeps telling us something is "true" | and anyone who dissents is "moderated" and "curated" into | effective silence. | | I would trust Reporters Without Borders more than most, but | maybe that's because their biases align with mine and I don't | object to their censorship. | itronitron wrote: | >> Where is the line between "curation" (or "moderation" in | discussions) and "censorship"? | | They don't have authority to 'censor' anything, so what they | choose to include is their choice as curators. | | If I have a bookshelf in my office that is full of banned | books, then any banned book not on my bookshelf isn't banned | by me. | pixl97 wrote: | Reality requires bias. | | Without bias and interpretation omniscients is required. A | human mind does not have the luxury of knowing everything. We | have limited compute power, and limited time. Furthermore our | systems only have capabilities for limited data. We have to | filter against junk or our systems get overwhelmed, but | deciding what is junk is also a bias. | | The best we can do is state our biases, and design our | systems to reflect or biases properly. If others don't like | those biases they are free to create their own systems that | reflect their biases. | tracker1 wrote: | Bias is only necessary for editorialization or conjecture | regarding another's intent. Facts are facts, though | omission of facts is also an issue.. | pixl97 wrote: | >Facts are facts, though omission of facts is also an | issue. | | Because you are a human, the 'facts' you acknowledge are | anthropomorphic. We align our filtering of facts to the | scales at which humans and society operates. When we | change the scale of what we consider to be fact, then | quite often what we consider to be a fact is really just | an interpretation of events based on the perspective of | the observer. Reality exists in a state of thermodynamic | truth, that is if we could reverse the arrow of time you | arrive at exactly one state at whichever slice of time. | | "Facts" as told by humans do not work this way the vast | majority of the time. They are incomplete observations of | a system using incomplete information. Time reversal of | human facts can lead to situations where multiple | starting states can lead to the same factual finding. | Causality is uncertain without searching for even more | facts, those facts which have been lost to thermodynamic | scattering, leading us back to interpretation. | | Bias is absolutely necessary to operate on a human scale. | ElectricalUnion wrote: | > Bias is only necessary for editorialization or | conjecture regarding another's intent. | | I'm gonna assume you're taking a hard science approach to | bias, then: | | It is statistically non-plausible to observe all facts in | the universe, so the facts you can observe suffer from | the selection bias fact sampling error. | | Bias is required in any useful model of the universe to | explain the difference between the expected and the | observed. | | Even assuming a non-plausible, accurate model with no | biases whatsoever, such model is very likely to require | high variance to encompass all fact observations and | models with too much variance are useless. | tracker1 wrote: | So the observed never happened? If the observed was | recorded from many angles, did it happen then? | vorpalhex wrote: | I agree with your statement in the theoretical. However I | disagree in practice because of this: | | > If others don't like those biases they are free to create | their own systems that reflect their biases. | | Those who create alternatives are attacked, chased, banned, | deplatformed. Even if a webhost is happy to work with you, | the credit card network may not be or their bank may ban | them. | | Not that the signal doesn't find a way - the good work of | Anna's archive and all that - but it's not just "go build | your own platform". It becomes "fight at every turn for | your basic existence". | pixl97 wrote: | The existence of society demands this in practice. This | is how humanity has worked at least since the beginning | of agriculture, and likely long before that. Step out of | line too far, and someone caves your head in. At best we | can hope for is that the rock holder is accepting, and | not a fascist. | | You will find that it is impossible to create a society | that does not exist in this manner. Since a society that | accepts everybody also means it accepts people that don't | accept everyone by means of violence, hence destroying a | society that accepts everyone. | vorpalhex wrote: | You're conflating actual violence and "viewpoints I | dislike". | | Yes every society will resort to vigilantism to protect | itself in the absence of a policing power. | | But death threats to someone because they made a tweet | you disagree with or abusing your power as a bank to | control speech isn't about protecting yourself from | violence - though that excuse is often used. | | It's a form of denial, of shutting down uncomfortable | debate. It's an ideological sort of end, like a dictator | who has a pathological need to execute his critics. The | "inner ring" of acceptable opinions grows ever smaller - | it has to. It's not about making the world better, it's | about attacking outsiders and the beast always needs new | outsiders. | pixl97 wrote: | >But death threats to someone because they made a tweet | you disagree with or abusing your power as a bank to | control speech isn't about protecting yourself from | violence - | | It's about causing violence. It's no different than "You | happened to say something against our religious book, | don't do it again or you'll get hurt". | | Outsiders are a useful target because sometimes they are | also the monster. This is the effect of existing in a | reality with uncertainty. Accept everyone uncritically | and you may be attacked by those you accept, this leads | to fear, that fear is then manipulated by those that want | power. There is no solution here, there is only the | attempt to balance between malicious outsiders and | malicious insiders. | pessimizer wrote: | The market of ideas fails under capitalism. The market of | ideas is denominated in votes, but capitalism requires it | to be denominated in dollars. The market of ideas also | fails under governments and corporations who pay | thousands of people to work covertly and overtly to | eradicate ideas. | vorpalhex wrote: | The problem isn't Capitalism. In Capitalism we can simply | buy our services and anyone who can fund can play. | | What is happening when a bank refuses to do business with | someone, when App stores ban a twitter clone and prevent | sideloading, is not Capitalism. It's ideological. It's | about service to an end outside just capital. | | Capitalism is the only system that freedom of speech can | exist under. No Communist or Socialist author has ever | entertained a freedom of speech concept - it is contrary | to a centralized government. Such systems can not even | handle mild political dissent and must (both in the | theoretical and practical) literally kill or exile anyone | pushing against the central authority. | | Capitalism can always tolerate disagreement because | disagreement is profitable. | pixl97 wrote: | >Capitalism can always tolerate disagreement because | disagreement is profitable. | | Eh, that depends. The US in particular like to 'two | party' problems. Capitalism loves two sides in problems, | but that is very problematic if a problem is multi-polar | and not bi-polar. | | You're also confusing socialist/communist with | authoritarian. Capitalist systems are completely fine | with being authoritarian if its profitable. | hutzlibu wrote: | "No Communist or Socialist author has ever entertained a | freedom of speech concept " | | Maybe you have heard of Animal Farm or 1984, written by | George Orwell? | | Or do you think, he wrote those books to endorse the | concept? | pixl97 wrote: | No authoritarian has entertained a concept of freedom of | speech. Just so you're aware, yes, capitalist can be | authoritarian too. | lmm wrote: | The point is the converse: socialism can be liberal too, | as exemplified by Orwell. | hutzlibu wrote: | I don't get your point, do you claim Orwell is authorian | and anti free speach? | guy98238710 wrote: | > Reality requires bias. | | There's only one reality. | | > We have limited compute power, and limited time. | | Simplified models of reality don't need to be biased. | Unless you consider every viewpoint to be a kind of bias, | which is really stretching the term. | brightlancer wrote: | > Unless you consider every viewpoint to be a kind of | bias, | | Yes. | | > which is really stretching the term. | | No. | | There is an objective reality which we can only perceive | subjective. We then get together as groups and agree upon | what we're going to call "true", building upon what we've | previously agreed was "true". This is bias. | | But not all agreed "true" are equally accurate! Not all | biases are as subjective as others. | | So we can (and IMO should) recognize that we're all | biased and we're all subjectively interpreting the | objective reality, without embracing some kind of | fatalism or post-modern idea that all subjective | interpretations are equally valid. | atlantic wrote: | If reality can only be perceived through a subjective | lens, then that is the only reality there is. Reality as | something independent of any observer is just a fantasy. | And if you think about it, it's actually meaningless. | guy98238710 wrote: | > There is an objective reality which we can only | perceive subjective. | | Observation is not inherently subjective though. The | defining quality of objective reality is that it leads to | shared, repeatable observations. | pixl97 wrote: | Repeatable observations typically simplify assumptions to | achieve stability in face of combinatorial explosions. We | gain statistical insight on the probability something is | true in particular conditions, not that something is an | absolute truth. | | For example, if you take someone in the medical sciences | when it comes to pharmaceutical treatment if they don't | tell you there are wide ranging statistical truths that | are difficult to apply to individuals, then they are a | bad scientist. | | Systems complexity leads to subjectivity due to feedback | loops inside the system itself. Think of deeply nested IF | statements customized for a particular application, but | no one bothers to give you the source code. | pixl97 wrote: | >There's only one reality. | | You're almost, but not quite there.... | | That one reality is what I call thermodynamic truth. Now | any time someone brings up thermodynamics other | statements like arrow of time show up and other issues | with informational incompleteness become problems. | | Simplified models of reality can quickly collapse in | uncertainty in complex situations. Lets say an explosion | and subsequent fire at a factory. The people working on | the device that exploded where killed, so we only have | second hand information on what they where doing. The | fire was especially intense so the device expected of | causing the explosion was melted completely and only | mixed slag remains. The machine was made in the 1950s so | other forms of entropy have been involved on information | on the metals used in the machine. | | There is no simple model of reality that can tell you | what occurred with certainty in situations like this. The | additional entropy from the fire creates a situation | where many possible input situations lead to the same | output situation. | | We see this kind of entropy in social situations. The | game of telephone is a good example of this. You start | with "X5W1" and end up with "EXU1" after a few steps and | everyone along the way would tell you thats exactly what | they heard. | | >Unless you consider every viewpoint to be a kind of | bias, which is really stretching the term | | Not stretching the term at all. Biases exist at all | levels, physical processes and mental processes, human | and inhuman. | guy98238710 wrote: | > Simplified models of reality can quickly collapse in | uncertainty in complex situations. Lets say an explosion | and subsequent fire at a factory. The people working on | the device that exploded where killed, so we only have | second hand information on what they where doing. The | fire was especially intense so the device expected of | causing the explosion was melted completely and only | mixed slag remains. The machine was made in the 1950s so | other forms of entropy have been involved on information | on the metals used in the machine. | | If I cover an apple with a cup before you have time to | look at it, the apple does not disappear nor is there any | alternate reality with pear under the cup. It's just a | blank space in your knowledge, which you are free to fill | with any bias-free probabilistic model. | trelane wrote: | > Whenever I see a project like this, I have to ask: what kinds | of true things are censored from the "uncensored library"? | | I was curious about this as well. | | The "criteria for inclusion" link takes you to a page on | "weeding:" https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/weeding-is- | fundamenta... | | It describes the _process_ (a few different ones, MUSTY, green | /yellow/red) but not a lot of concrete facts (what books were | "weeded" or which books were suggested but not purchased.) | hot_gril wrote: | There isn't going to be an exact process. The answer is, they | say so, and someone else can make his own library if he | doesn't like their choices. | golemiprague wrote: | [dead] | starkparker wrote: | (2022) | | I remember when publicity stunts like this would ship in Second | Life. The more things change... | dmbche wrote: | I'm reminded of the people that were chatting in MW2 games by | writing on the walls with bullet holes! | itronitron wrote: | It's common for players on minecraft to take turns placing | signs next to each other if they want to have a 'private' | conversation with another player (which is handy in some | competitive game modes), and I've also seen muted players name | their pets in-game with messages that they want to communicate. | slow_typist wrote: | The kids are doing a lot of impressive stuff. When building | together, the owner of the plot leads other builders by | literally showing them what and how to build, it's way | quicker than chat, they are very disciplined, repeat the | building steps, then stop and watch the owner in order to see | if they did it right. Sometimes they need a few iterations | but it's still quicker than chat. | hot_gril wrote: | > messages that they want to communicate | | Very nice way of putting it. | tuukkah wrote: | In the context of Russian war in Ukraine: | | > _"As the Russian government has de facto suppressed its | national press and blocked access to foreign media, Counter- | Strike has remained as one of the rare channels that allows us to | communicate independent information to Russians about real events | from the war"_ https://www.pcgamesn.com/counter-strike-global- | offensive/csg... | sebzim4500 wrote: | I've always wondered how this could work in practice. It's hard | enough to convince your average American fox news fan that | putin might not be a great guy, how exactly are you going to | convince a Russian? | nonethewiser wrote: | > how exactly are you going to convince a Russian? | | That is flaming you for not rotating fast enough. | | To be clear this is commentary on your average counter strike | player, not necessarily Russian cs players. | tuukkah wrote: | Not all Russians are stupid: many (most?) understand that | they are being lied to and some (especially the younger | generations) are interested in reading independent sources. I | think these services are for those people -- facts can be | highly valuable (and worth jumping through the necessary | hoops). | cubefox wrote: | N=1, but ... a few months before Russia invaded Ukraine, I | talked to a Russian girl at a party in Germany. She said | she "voted with her feet" when she decided to move out of | Russia. So she wasn't very Russia friendly. Moreover, young | women are probably the most progressive demographic full- | stop. Yet when I asked her about Ukraine, she repeated all | the standard Russian government propaganda about an alleged | NATO threat and stated that she was "neutral" on whether | Russia should invade Ukraine. I was pretty shocked. If even | young female expats think this way, what do older Russian | men think? Perhaps she was a rare outlier. Or perhaps it's | not an accident that so many Russians appear to continue to | vote for Putin's party. | xwdv wrote: | Is it possible Ukraine isn't entirely innocent? Sure we | assume they are from our point of view, but that's the | nature of propaganda, how do you really know what is | reality? | lazyasciiart wrote: | Not innocent of what!? Even Putin justifies the invasion | by saying Ukrainian people want to be part of Russia. | That is not justification for invading and killing them. | Being skeptical of what you hear is one thing, abandoning | reality to say "who knows, anything is possible" is | another. | xwdv wrote: | If you can't prove things are impossible, then | technically anything _is_ possible. | staunton wrote: | At which point you can stop using the words "prove" and | "possible". | themitigating wrote: | If the probability of something is below a certain amount | it should be treated as if it is impossible. | tuukkah wrote: | You are speaking as if truth wasn't a thing... | | Also, there's _nothing_ Ukraine could have done that | would have made Russia 's actions justified. | | Finally, when you follow the Russian statements for a | while, you notice that they are self-contradictory. This | lets you disregard their arguments as pure lies - the | truth is not self-contradictory. | teekert wrote: | Is it indeed possible that the whole thing started in | 2014 with whole "f the EU" shenanigans and "Biden being | in on it"? And that that truth is suppressed here, and | perhaps amplified over there? | | I thought this was an insightful podcast: [0] | | [0] https://podverse.fm/episode/ds2T0EjC8 | tejohnso wrote: | I don't think you have to listen to Russian government | propaganda to understand the NATO threat if you have any | cognitive empathy whatsoever. Angela Merkel is on record | saying that the negotiated Minsk peace agreement was a | complete sham. | | "The US and its allies "simulated supporting the UN | Security Council resolution" which endorsed the roadmap | to peace while pumping weapons into Ukraine and "ignored | all crimes committed by the Kiev regime ... for the sake | of a decisive strike against Russia," she explained in a | social media post on Thursday [1]. | | Also John Mearsheimer, an American, laid out the case for | Ukraine as a massive NATO threat in a public talk many | years ago. Available on youtube. | | Would the United States welcome Chinese and Russian | nuclear capable installations in Mexico or Cuba? | | How are you attempting to balance your point of view | against the intense western government propaganda that | you're exposed to? | | [1]: https://www.globalresearch.ca/merkel-acknowledges- | that-2014-... | cf141q5325 wrote: | >Also John Mearsheimer, an American, laid out the case | for Ukraine as a massive NATO threat in a public talk | many years ago. Available on youtube. | | Russia has also been vocal about this for decades. The | CIA director summarized it rather well during his time as | Ambassador in his "Nyet means Nyet" cable. | | https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html | natechols wrote: | > Would the United States welcome Chinese and Russian | nuclear capable installations in Mexico or Cuba? | | Personally, it's none of my business what Mexico or Cuba | do on their territory, but are you saying the US has | nuclear installations in Ukraine? | stevenally wrote: | So.... where's the decisive NATO strike? They won't even | supply adequate weapons to Ukraine. | _kbh_ wrote: | [dead] | slow_typist wrote: | No, Merkel didn't say that. Zakharova did. | cf141q5325 wrote: | She mentioned it in an interview with the ZEIT recently. | | Here the article debating the interpretation of what she | said. https://web.archive.org/web/20230103062022/https:// | www.zeit.... | | > Merkel sagte der ZEIT: "Das Minsker Abkommen 2014 war | der Versuch, der Ukraine Zeit zu geben. Sie hat diese | Zeit auch genutzt, um starker zu werden, wie man heute | sieht." | themitigating wrote: | "Would the United States welcome Chinese and Russian | nuclear capable installations in Mexico or Cuba?" | | There are already NATO counties extremely close to | Russia, Poland shares a border | permo-w wrote: | Poland shares a border with Kaliningrad, but not the | Russia proper. this is much like how Russia is very | nearby to Alaska, but not the US proper | ElectricalUnion wrote: | But last time the USSR tried having weapons installed in | Cuba the world almost ended because the USA got angry | about it. | andrepd wrote: | And after installing weapons in Turkey themselves! | lmm wrote: | The US doesn't see Poland as US territory, and cares | rather less for Polish citizens than American ones. | Barrin92 wrote: | People are sensitive when it comes to the sovereignty of | their home countries even if they're not particularly | fond of their governments. When I lived in China a lot of | young, laissez-faire, liberal minded people who were | critical of the increasingly repressive culture were | nonetheless allergic to any kind of foreign encroachment. | | The attitude is largely that, "our government may suck, | but it is ours", and when foreign countries are perceived | as strangling their development, you'll turn even the | most raging regime critic into a reluctant supporter. And | of course they don't view NATO or the rules based order | or what have you as some benevolent thing, but tools of | power. | constantcrying wrote: | ISIS and neo-nazis can host websites on the public internet. What | possible reason is there to host it _on minecraft_ instead of as | html on the internet? Or on tor if need be? | | This seems really, really stupid. (Except for the actual | Minecraft building, which seems quite nice) | oersted wrote: | It seems to me more of an artistic/social statement rather than | an actual practical resource. And it is an effective one: | interesting enough to become somewhat viral, and the | architecture itself conveys a strong message. | npteljes wrote: | I see it more as an art piece. And I think instead of stupid, | it's better described as superfluous. | | Second thought: since it's Minecraft, a secondary purpose can | be that it signals the values not just the supposed target | demography, but to all people interested in Minecraft. | hot_gril wrote: | Cause random kids and other people have an easier and more fun | time hosting Minecraft servers. Makes it go viral more easily | and also adds one more way to access it. | itronitron wrote: | Most intelligence agencies probably aren't set up to crawl and | index the book content on a minecraft server. | | If the server operators wanted to make that even more of a | challenge they could render the books as maps. | nonethewiser wrote: | You're not wrong but what is it about hackernews comments which | focus on debunking the utility of something. I feel like the | top comment on most articles I see are observing the ways in | which something is useless. It's pretty staggering. | | Again, you're not wrong, and I'm not even saying these comments | are bad or anything. I'm guessing hackernews commentors tend to | be skeptics and are tuned to poke holes? But clearly it was | posted based on some apparent merit. Other reactions would be | totally normal too, like "oh wow, that's really impressive. I | didn't know this existed." Or how so much of the real world has | been modeled in minecraft (archival libraries, computers using | redstone, etc.). Or noting what works they consider worthy of | entry in the library. | LexiMax wrote: | It seems to be trendy these days to be a "doomer." | | It's a mindset where nothing good happens in the world, and | no cloud has a silver lining. Skepticism is a default, and | earnestness or cleverness makes you naive or a sucker who | will get their deserved reality check soon enough. | | It must be a horrendous headspace to constantly be in. | networkchad wrote: | [dead] | lmm wrote: | It is, or rather was (sadly it's been deliberately suppressed | by the mods of late), the HN culture. It's a part of what | makes this place what it is, and was why this used to be a | high-quality site. | ertian wrote: | There's a tendency on the Internet to default to negativity, | skepticism, and cynicism. It seems worse amongst programmers | and tech people. I think it's just a way of demonstrating how | clever the commenter is: _I_ can see through this! And, less | charitably, there 's maybe a tendency to tear down the work | of others as a way of feeling better about one's own lack of | accomplishments: sure, I haven't done much, but at least I | didn't do something stupid like this! | | Is this project useful as a way of circumventing censorship? | Nah, almost certainly not. So consider it a thought | experiment. An art piece. A way of illustrating the | importance of free speech to a younger generation that maybe | hasn't thought that hard about it yet. A browsable _museum_ | of censorship, the likes of which no government would build. | Maybe an inspiration for people to build better tools. | | Or just a neat project for people to spend some time working | on, that's more interesting than making a copy of Big Ben in | Minecraft. | haswell wrote: | FTA: | | > _"In many countries, websites, social media and blogs are | controlled by oppressive leaders. Young people, in particular, | are forced to grow up in systems where their opinion is heavily | manipulated by governmental disinformation campaigns. But even | where almost all media is blocked or controlled, the world's | most successful computer game is still accessible. Reporters | Without Borders (RSF) uses this loophole to bypass internet | censorship to bring back the truth - within Minecraft."_ | crest wrote: | You can walkt through the (virtual) halls of forbidden | knowledge and hiding text on textures visible in complex game | engines can be an effective to bypass censorship using | inconspicuous tools. | wongarsu wrote: | Authoritarian regimes have lots of infrastructure in place to | censor http(s) traffic, and at least China is getting quite | good at restricting tor usage. Meanwhile they probably don't | have much in place to ban specific minecraft servers, and their | deep packet inspection might not cover Minecraft books. There's | value in using obscure technologies. | nonethewiser wrote: | Highly relevant hackernews comment from 2020: | | > It's worth noting that this project will likely not benefit | the people of China. A somewhat obscure fact is that China | has its own edition of Minecraft which cannot connect to | servers of the mainstream edition. | https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Minecraft_China | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22569178 | debugnik wrote: | > In-game text content is heavily censored, including but | not limited to chat, Book and Quills, Written Books, Signs, | Command Blocks, renamed items (via Anvils) and mobs (via | renamed Spawn Eggs or Name Tags) | | > Censorship also applies to any text in the launcher, such | as community posts, comments on contents, and private | messages. Rental servers and virtual LAN games are not | allowed to have names altogether, instead being referred to | by a numerical ID | | I guess you don't need any obscure packet inspection if you | can just censor the clients and servers directly instead. | This feels like the censorship equivalent of the wrench | XKCD. | alpb wrote: | No oppressive government has gone through the lengths of | blocking access to a Minecraft server. That's why. Many | oppressive governments will actively block access to pages that | post narrative countering their reality. | cratermoon wrote: | ISIS and neo-nazis have the backing of powerful friends and | allies with lots of money and power. | bboygravity wrote: | Example: the bank of international settlements (BIS) or: "the | central bank of central banks" (confirmed nazi's | likely/possibly neo-nazi's). | themitigating wrote: | Governments are more likely to censor threats against | themselves over people. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-07-20 23:01 UTC)