I didn't miss that and I'm not sure what argument you're making. It sounds like you're trying to say that state censorship is conditional, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to make your case.

As person who was in blackout in Jan 2022 in Kazakhstan, I’ll say it’s very unpleasant situation when you known that some people go into protests. Some security service building was looted of arms. Police nowhere to be seen. No communications and you don’t know if should you do some limited self protection available in form of running or not. So even if government control what they say, it does not control your ability to find out what’s going on via other people. That’s big deal for your physical security and wellbeing

The US does this a bit, but even with that suppression of free speech, even with most mass media outlets being owned by oligarchs that are subservient to the President, the internet is still going. Europe has penalties for Nazi speech, yet the internet is still going there.

There's no comparison to what's going on in these countries to what's going on in Iran. Trying to "what about" with the US censorship of, say, the majority political opinion in a city by cutting off all federal funds that were previously flowing to the city is not very relevant. Yes, it's bad, but here we are talking about it on the Internet!

> by portraying it as a repressive dictatorship that is cracking down on peaceful protest. This is a standard "regime change" strategy, which often includes violent demonstrations in order to provoke state violence."

Side note: The self contradiction in adjacent sentences is so funny to me! It says a lot about the lack of mental coherency of the author and of the intended audience.

But I'm not 100% sure I follow your point, this is an editorial from way back in 2014, from a UK site not a US site. Though this could be published in the Guardian, I don't think a supporter of Maduro's government would get any TV time.

Search long enough and you will find supporters and detractors of all governments in the US, and openly doing it, because that's what the US's principles are supposed to allow. I remember in SF a political group which is half-mainstream, the DSA, starting a Maoist reading group, which caused a local uproar. That's particularly notable in SF, a city that has a very large Chinese population, with many of the families in SF to flee Mao himself!

The original assertion was that the US had one voice, without any opposition, in its media. While the viewpoints that make it into the mainstream media are somewhat narrow, you can find nearly every viewpoint somewhere on the Internet in the US.

> I think they would machine gun them even with internet, it's more about stopping them from organising.

Yes, but cutting off internet access to the entire country typically makes machine gunning much more efficient (due to organizing being made much more difficult for the people) and much less costly in terms of the global outcry and reputation.

They did just after the protest started, and there is no evidence that's actually happening but it's kind of the point since we are not receiving information from Iran since the government blocked them out from the internet

This is the third uprising. They have so far followed the same recipe. People raise up. Internet is turned off. People are arrested and killed by the authorities. They are using the death penalty to teach the Iranians that raising up will get you killed.

While I dislike trumpism, I do hope that the Iranian authorities will get bombed. They deserve to die for how they treat their own people.

Where is their evidence that the internet was cut to prevent evidence from disseminating?

https://x.com/hey_itsmyturn/status/2011240433310191658

The Farsi text in the tweet says: "we knew that since four days ago but we haven't had any visual proof until now"

The Farsi text in the photo is a message from a civilian saying machine guns are in the streets.

The bit were the death toll was 70 after a week of protests, then the internet was cut and in 3 days it’s closer to 2,000.

The request was for a redeeming quality, not a damning one.

Want to be more specific about your argument? I’d consider a government good if it is serves the people of that country. “Iran murders and tortures it citizens by the thousands, and impoverishes them by the millions through widespread corruption, but they sold some drones to Russia, so that’s nice.” Is that your argument?

The US tried in the Korean war but they were hard work to fight.

Absolutely, there's been no major conflict like this since WW2. The strategy shifted to proxy controlled damage in places not US, not Russia, not China, but the weaker states where there was some incentive for control (resources, geography, political alliance, etc). While not a big state (not since centuries), Iran was a proxy controller with the capacity to cause mayhem.

Aha, that country also makes sense, and is an understandable response too. The US is in very deep trouble internationally. We in the US have been swimming against this madness for so long that it's almost refreshing to see somebody have an appropriate response. A good 1/3 of the country in the US is stark-raving mad and addicted to disinformation and forcing it on others.

I guess I've never seen tech as disconnected at all from politics, even on HN, and perhaps especially on HN, as the intersection of tech and politics has been a discussion point as long as I can remember.

Even classic programmer sci-fi, like Snowcrash and Cryptonomicon, is highly political, and largely about the political effects of technology on society.

When you look at it, you do notice how much of what is happening in that region was due to western (particularly British) intervention and colonialism, and continues to this day.

What is your point again? Why are you listing iranian domestic problems when we are talking about foreign policy. There are lots of failing countries all around the world and most of them don't hate America because the CIA didnt coup their popular leader.

Given everything going on in this country, I don't think a silly law from 1944 is going to deter the current administration from trying.

> X cannot do it, because there is actually a law against Y

Famous last words.

I'm more than shocked that people STILL haven't learned how quickly laws came become meaningless. Which is why history keeps repeating itself.

If fascist government goons break into your house to kill you, do you think waving a piece of paper with the law in their face will stop them? Isn't that the whole point the found fathers made the Second Amendment? Even they knew this 300 years ago. Have people already forgotten?

The US also are by law not allowed to start a war without the approval of Congress, right? But they did anyway in Venezuela.

> The USA cannot do it, because there is actually a law against cutting off communications systems dating back to 1944. Of course there have been attempts to make it possible.

The link you provided says:

In 1942, during World War II, Congress created a law to grant President Franklin D. Roosevelt or his successors the power to temporarily shut down any potentially vulnerable technological communications technologies.

The Unplug the Internet Kill Switch Act would reverse the 1942 law and prevent the president from shutting down any communications technology during wartime, including the internet.

The House version was introduced on September 22 as bill number H.R. 8336, by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI2). The Senate version was introduced the same day as bill number S. 4646, by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

The bill did not pass and did not become law. So what are you referring to?

Even if your optimism had some basis in reality, about 12 guys with $5 serrated pocket knives bought on aliexpress could knock out 80% of communications in under an hour. Fiber optic strands are alarmingly tiny, and wrapped in day-glo orange plastic tubing making them intentionally easy to find.

For whatever reason it's taboo to talk about how fragile infrastructure is, but if you wanted to shut something like comm links down, that's a problem for whoever installs the new judiciary. Chances are, whoever gets the job of being the new judiciary is likely to rule it as acceptable use of emergency powers.

Laws are just words, not real barriers as this and previous administrations proved.

In fact, it's likely that you can turn off the internet, and then, after some time, a judge will rule on the topic.

Does it really matter what is illegal if it is pardoned?

Starting insurrection to overthrow election? Pardoned. Killing police officer? Pardoned. Ordering contract killings? Pardoned. Large scale drug smuggling operation to the US? Pardoned.

Brand anyone who follows the law as a criminal and make sure to have them fired, and you can even ignore the constition that says power to regulate trade lies with the senate and enough of civil society might just decide to play along.

Laws in the era of lawlessness. Laws never really stopped all crimes anyways.

I don't think it's technically feasible to blackout the US but if it came to that no law would stand in the way of the attempt.

I'm sure there is at least one security-claiming act that can be used to override that sentence

>cannot do it, because there is actually a law

Oh sweet summer child.

> The USA cannot do it, because there is actually a law

Good one, buddy. That's a good one.

Well. I can't talk for the current government of Sweden, but if I was the supreme leader of a Swedish Dictatorship, I am pretty confident that I could accomplish that by sending some very persuasive soldiers along with a government officer with some papers ordering those private companies to do whatever the fuck I wanted unless their executives wanted to experience some extra holes in their bodies.

Guys with guns can be pretty convincing

Does Sweden not have the equivalent of the UK's civil contingency act?

Section 2 basically allows the Westminster government to make regulations as they see fit during an emergency, but with a short time scale (like a month or so) before parliament gets a say.

> I highly doubt the Swedish government has a way to turn off our internet

You guys do. Säpo and Telia were a customers of mine when I was still an IC.

The providers have to oblige any government order.

> Our government doesn't own our internet infrastructure,

Does ANY country from the list above own their internet infrastructure?

>it's owned by private companies.

So what? If it's on Swedish ground then it's under Swedish government(military) enforcement in case the shit hits the fan.

>The government could impose legislation to force providers to comply with shutting down international peering but I have a hard time seeing it pass.

Do you think if Russia invades Sweden tomorrow, private businesses can still do whatever they want like in peacetime, or will they have to follow the new waartime rules set by the government and enforced by armed soldiers knocking on their door dragging them to court if they refuse to comply?

FBI agents show up at a few dozen major datacenters with bolt cutters?

Half the internet goes down by accident when AWS or Cloudflare have a big issue every few years.

RF comms can't realistically be jammed across the entirety of a whole country, though, so this is definitely a case of "something is better than nothing", and it absolutely makes sense to establish community-level networking/comms at least.

Planes can be shot down

Eh I don't think there are enough jammers to get everywhere. Otherwise a twinkling sea of laser light house to house repeaters, red stars in the dark is a pretty sounding dystopia.

> ...whelp, this thread is gonna get shut down.

No. It's about iran, so it'll get stuck on the frontpage for a while. If this was about israel, then you'd have point.

> but all it takes is one person to say some out-of-pocket shit like "the country currently massacring protestors is the real democracy" for it to descend below HN's standards for political discourse.

The US has massacred people, even protestors. Are you saying we are not a democracy?

> And FWIW, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is ostensibly a democracy, too.

There is a difference between one claiming to be a democracy and another that actually is. No?

> other videos of live firing at crowds as well as testimonials

I haven’t seen any of these and I have been looking.

> morgues

I did find this one: https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2026/jan/12/bodies-l...

It doesn’t appear to be anywhere near thousands, but covered bodies have been put out onto the street, so something is going on there.

Phones are blocked as well.

This is a total communication blackout.

Hrana says. It is US based.

[flagged]

“it's a fair criticism though because of the general vitriol about Hamas and Gaza.”

Ok, you’ve convinced me. I now firmly support reducing billions in American aid to Iran, curtailing Iranian use of American bombs, and diplomatic cover America gives to Iran in the UN. I am now also calling strongly to remove all these state laws we have that ban government business with companies that don’t support Iran!

I appreciated your exchange in this subthread about the difference of the U.S.'s involvement versus Iran. However, I want to push back even without drawing that distinction, so I do it here.

I think private individuals and even civil society organizations, no matter how noxious or loud they can be, have a right to have specific passions without being expected to be universalist in application or having to account for why. Particularly when it comes down to the individual, people have a right to say, I find this cause very moving for whatever reason and I don't think then there's an obligation to answer for everything else going on in the world. Especially outside of governments, international organizations, and civil society groups that claim to be universalist in their cause. If anything we should be glad people have passions outside their narrow world.

I believe that as a general principle, but also because in practice that criticism tends to get waged, dare I say weaponized, against particular causes. I don't tend to see people focused on Somalia, Haiti, or Cuba being denigrated for not caring about Iran. I don't see people shouting down advocates for Christians in Nigeria over supposed silence on the Rohingya. I think its punitive for believing in a cause, generally specific causes, rather than about integrity.

I would venture to guess you can also find ample examples across the world, and that selectivity is simply a part of human nature rather than some defect of western psyche.

> Why is that? It's a fair question.

I think most of those students would answer that they are protesting the US government's complicity in this particular injustice -- which doesn't apply to the other injustices you list. I have a hard time imagining that most people asking this fair question can't think of that obvious answer.

I don’t think that is a fair question if one has at any time tried to look into what exactly these protestors are protesting or how protest works.

> Why is that? It's a fair question.

Seems simple to me. The Palestine/Israel protests were demanding change from an ally. It was a call for "you guys are supposed to be good but what you're doing is bad."

I suppose there could be rallies of support for the Iranian people, but it would seem silly for US protesters to demand change from the Iranian government, given that our opinion is probably not regarded highly by them.

[flagged]

This is classic whataboutism. You don't have to criticize every single atrocity in the world in order to criticize one. I often find that people who take your stance don't care about any issues. They're simply weaponizing other problems to avoid engaging with the one they actually oppose.

There is also a key difference between the Palestine issue vs the others you listed. The fact that our country is deeply in bed with the country that is committing these crimes against humanity and actively funding it, along with the strange level of undue influence that country has on our government.

The difference you see is between a sponsored protest and unsponsored. Basically, bleeding heart liberals have been successfully convinced to align with Hamas without them explicitly realizing it either. This is a good primer on Hamas in the US and their general media strategy:

https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs5746/files/202...

Kind of interesting to keep in mind when people protest for a ceasefire instead of say, Hamas removed from power and free open elections resumed for Palestinians.

Misinformed, sure. As it's not obvious what Israel is trying to do in Gaza.

You ask for equal reaction, here it goes: I want for Israel the same sanctions that are applied to Iran and Russia. Fair, right?

> they should have lifted the sanctions in exchange for Iranian government easing some of the domestic laws...

No authoritarian regime wants to go down the same way Gorbachev, Husak, and Honecker did by meeting the opposition halfway.

Most regimes learnt from how China cracked down in Tiananmen and how SK cracked down in Gwangju, especially countries like Iran that are much more structurally similar to Maoist China than the 1980s Eastern Bloc, as much of the Iranian economy is owned by the Bonyads (Islamic charities), State Owned Enterprises, and regime affiliated conglomerates who wouldn't expect to retain economic control if Iran didn't remain an Islamic Republic, and the footsoldiers of the Cultural Revolution (yes, Iran had one too called the Inqilab e Firangi or "Revolution against the West") are the ones in charge.

The current violent crackdown is similar to that which the Iranian regime used during the Green Movement back in 2009-10.

The IRGC has a headcount of around 100k, the Police 300k, the PMF in Iraq (which have now been mobilized across Iran) have 200k, the Liwa Fateymoun (Shia Afghan militia) have around 3k-10k, and Liwa Zainabiyoun (Shia Pakistani/Pakhtun militia) have around 5k-8k personnel.

That's around 600k personnel who are ideologically aligned with the regime, have seen combat in Syria or Yemen, have had experience cracking down on anti-regime protests on multiple occasions, and have the means for a violent crackdown in a country of 90 million people. And that's ignoring personnel that the Houthis or Hezbollah can send despite being battered by Israeli strikes.

On the other hand, the SAVAK during the Iranian Revolution only had 5K personnel in a country of 40 million.

A lot of people will refer to Syria as an example of a counter-revolution, but the Syria's population was significantly better armed during the Assad regime compared to Iranians today. Before the Arab Spring it was common for the then Syrian government to send disaffected Sunni troublemakers across the border to Iraq to take potshots at the Americans and let them solve the problem [0][1][2][3]. This was how Jolani/al-Sharaa and a number of anti-Assad revolutionaries got their start as well.

I sincerely hope the Iranian people get the ability to choose the government that is right for them, but based on the lived experiences of my friends and family in authoritarian states, I sadly think the Iranian regime will stand.

[0] - https://jamestown.org/a-mujahideen-bleed-through-from-iraq-a...

[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/world/africa/07iht-syria....

[2] - https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirectio...

[3] - https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2008/10/30/...

First, Oct 7th was not the start, but it can seem like that to those that regard Palestinians as subhumans who do not deserve liberation and instead are destined to live under the shackles of apartheid, blockade, and occupation.

Secondly, there are various reasons why there is no protesting in this case. Maybe it’s because Israel is the child of US foreign policy? Or perhaps it’s because US veto protection is what has allowed Israel to get away with so much across its history? Or heck, maybe it’s because our taxpayer dollars fund the Israeli gov to the tune of billions of dollars annually (and don’t come with the “it is just weapons” bullshit; money is fungible).

On the other hand, what exactly would be accomplished by protesting against Iranian government repression on US soil or on US campuses?

Palestinians have been living in an apartheid state since well before October 7th, 2023. At least few decades back. Gaza was even worse.

To demand the US invades Iran? Do you think the Iranian fuckheads killing their own citizens care about the words of a group of people in a different country? A country which already sanctions Iran to the point that a protest doesn’t change anything for them unless the demand is for the US to invade them?

Direct your anger at the problems.

They were displacing and killing Palestinians long before oct 7th my dude.

>The voices that are silent are the ones that are shouting from the rooftops when Israel does this to Palestinians.

Depends on the protester and what they are protesting but many of Israel protests have been against US continuing to support/fund Israel and want US government to do something different.

Iran on other hand is US sanctioned and US actively works against it, very different relationship then with Israel.

> The voices that are silent are the ones that are shouting from the rooftops when Israel does this to Palestinians.

When Israel does this to Palestinians with US made planes and US made bombs, bought largely by US tax dollars? Over and over again for more than 2 years? Shielded from consequences in the UN by the US? Seems pretty sus that Americans would protest that in particular.

Well, last time I checked Iran was not invited to Euro-vision and my government was not selling weapons to it. So, not the same, see?

I demand for Israel the same sanctions that they are applying to Iran and Russia. Are you happy now?

The purpose of protesting Israel's human rights abuses is that lack of awareness, misinformation, and propaganda, are key pillars in the policies that make them possible. Protests (and online complaints) are ineffective enough already, we don't need to layer an unclear goal (what would you be hoping to accomplish?) on top of it all.

> The voices that are silent are the ones that are shouting from the rooftops when Israel does this to Palestinians.

As the comment you just replied to says, Iran is already sanctioned and bombed, while Israel gets billions in military (and other) aid from US and the rest of the West. It's abundantly clear that there's a difference.

And furthermore, so you have to have a decibel meter perfectly calibrated for every tragedy that happens on planet earth, or your arguments are nullified? Preposterous.

Israel's treatment of Palestinians is completely different from Iran's treatment of Iranians, though I agree both are bad.

[flagged]

[flagged]

One government is committing a genocide against a neighboring sovereign state. Why does a person have to condemn every atrocity to condemn genocide without being accused of being an anti-Semite? They don't need to, is the answer.

Not too long ago (three months ago?), either here or on Lobsters, an iranian programmer was basically pleading for help because he had built some type of A.I. system, but there is zero market for it in Iran, and he is blacklisted from working with / for anyone in the US.

Yesterday:

> A group of Iowa State University students gathered recently, standing in solidarity with the Iranian people and in opposition of the Middle Eastern government.

https://eu.amestrib.com/story/news/local/2026/01/12/iowa-sta...

but US universities aren't working together with Iranian universities, that is the difference

It's as if there are two different actors and only one is an ally that can be held responsible by the government people are actually protesting "to".

Minneapolis is closer to home and it hits different - Iran is some far of place.

[flagged]

> half a dozen Black Lives Matter protests, one of them attended by Michael Moore.

A whole half dozen, you say? And who could forget those iconic Michael Moore protest videos from 2020.

For anyone who wasn't paying attention somehow, these protests happened day after day for weeks in many major cities. And many smaller cities and towns had protests and vigils as well. This statistic is so unimpressive it makes this sound irrelevant.

that wasn't my point at all

That's what the Iranian regime claims.

[flagged]

It becomes completely clear when you remember that HAMAS is a subsidiary of the current Iranian government.

What on earth... Both Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have reported on the escalation of repression in Iran. BBC, NYTimes, WPost, and well, virtually every major media outlet in the World has been reporting on Iran at least since the major escalations around 5-6 January.

That's just such a bald-faced set of obvious lies that can be debunked with a 5-second google search... I struggle to see what your aim is in all this.

That's just not true though https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqj2llkjv8vo

Absolutely all your comments are shilling for Iranian dictatorship. Are you paid by Iran? Sorry I have a bad news for you, you will probably never receive the next paycheck since IRCG and terrorist mullahs regime is probably falling in the next weeks

The 12,000 number comes from Iran International's Editorial Board, not some random twitter user:

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202601130145

Even sources in the Iranian security forces say 2000, which is nothing to scoff at.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that and got yucked by it. I was genuinely looking for a contact email on the webpage to complain to them about it. Such pretty visualization of data to then have LLM garbage explain it.

You world view is very one-sided, it borders with total naiveness.

Do you have a source for these counter protests being organized and dictated by IRGC?

I agree with your other points. This current regime has degraded Iran to very unfortunate levels.

I really hope for a regime change for Iran, I sincerely do. The only reason I'm being quite particular about sources and facts is that I just don't want to see another Iraq and Afghanistan where the regime change causes more deaths, and then it leaves a power vacuum for all sorts of other violence and degradation.

Very presumptuous of you.

OP asked what a layman could do to help the protestors, and I asked which protestors he wants to support.

I despise the Iranian government lol. Stop attributing intent where there isn't.

There is another alternative, which a lot of my Irani friends prefer. Which is a regime change without foreign interference.

A puppet installed by US/Israel is a puppet that will only benefit those countries.

The difference is one set of protestors support US/Israel intervention for regime change.

The other group of protestors are protesting against this. There is a segment within this group that are ardently pro-Regime. The other segment (which I think is the majority of the group, and Iran, but I have no evidence and so this is purely anecdotal based on my various discussions with Iranians) is that they do want regime change, but not from any outside influence - they would ideally like an organic democratic process that Iranian citizens control.

Do you want to expound on why it's propaganda and argue why, or are you denying the fact there are two groups of protestors currently in Iran?

Please make your point clear without accusing me of supporting state-sponsored violence.

Illinois is not currently supplying drones and rockets to russia. Is not financing terrorist organizations around the world