This has nothing to do with "virtue-signaling". Russia's actions have been extremely evil, so it's only natural it generates dislike, even hate. That's how we humans are.
Same happened to the Germans during and after World War II.
> What's ironic is that the ones doing this crap are usually the first to cry about internet censorship.
I believe most people against internet censorship are against _government_ censorship. I fall into that camp. I don't support government censorship of the internet, but I have no problem if individual website operators decide they don't want to serve a certain country.
It’s not censorship when the author is the one limiting who can see it. And what’s your basis for saying these people are the first to cry about internet censorship? Have you actually seen the same people doing this or are you just imagining it to be true?
Virtue signaling is not the same as being virtuous. It's an empty, zero effort, gesture that contributes nothing of real value or meaning. Like changing your profile picture or posting a trending hashtag.
It's a kneejerk reaction and a dumb way to oppose anything. People couldn't care less about some site becoming unavailable. What really happens when the site goes down in a way like that is it removes its own presence from the minds. Doing that is basically blocking yourself, instead of blocking "them". One less voice to hear.
Collective punishment is considered abhorrent in much of the world. It's acceptable in places that you'd probably not want to live or to change our societies into.
I'm against war but it just says nothing more than stupid virtue-signaling when you do stuff like this.
What's ironic is that the ones doing this crap are usually the first to cry about internet censorship.
> ... nothing more than stupid virtue-signaling ...
The commenter don't know this with certainty. It is a rather uncharitable assumption. It is hard to know what is inside the head of another person.
If the people providing the information want to block you from reading it, that does rather feel like their prerogative.
This has nothing to do with "virtue-signaling". Russia's actions have been extremely evil, so it's only natural it generates dislike, even hate. That's how we humans are.
Same happened to the Germans during and after World War II.
What the government and its leadership does is very different from civilians (which may not even have the power to change anything).
> What's ironic is that the ones doing this crap are usually the first to cry about internet censorship.
I believe most people against internet censorship are against _government_ censorship. I fall into that camp. I don't support government censorship of the internet, but I have no problem if individual website operators decide they don't want to serve a certain country.
Imagine thinking it’s bad to signal virtue.
It’s not censorship when the author is the one limiting who can see it. And what’s your basis for saying these people are the first to cry about internet censorship? Have you actually seen the same people doing this or are you just imagining it to be true?
Virtue signaling is not the same as being virtuous. It's an empty, zero effort, gesture that contributes nothing of real value or meaning. Like changing your profile picture or posting a trending hashtag.
Neither of those things are bad.
It's a kneejerk reaction and a dumb way to oppose anything. People couldn't care less about some site becoming unavailable. What really happens when the site goes down in a way like that is it removes its own presence from the minds. Doing that is basically blocking yourself, instead of blocking "them". One less voice to hear.
One person complains. Many more simply forget about your existence.
Collective punishment is considered abhorrent in much of the world. It's acceptable in places that you'd probably not want to live or to change our societies into.
I don't think you can consider a website ban as collective punishment.