3 ms·
I think it's a bit much to call this sabotage. It's not as if this opensource node-library is fulfilling a crucial role in Russia's war efforts. Using this rea
by legacynl 5y ago
I think it's a bit much to call this sabotage. It's not as if this opensource node-library is fulfilling a crucial role in Russia's war efforts.
Using this reasoning you could argue that any negative comments about the war towards a russian could be construed as sabotage, because it goes against Russian war-propaganda.
- runarberg 5y agoNegative comments usually don’t have anything disrupted. This however disrupted the consumption of websites that use this library. So these websites were indeed sabotaged for the end user through this library. In comparison this act is probably more disruptive then anti-war sticker bombing in grocery stores (https://t.me/nowarmetro/465 https://t.me/nowarmetro/465) and most people would call that sabotage. But like I said, sabotage is not loaded. It can cause anything from a minor or trivial disruption, to a major destruction. It can have a positive or negative message, or even no message at all.
- leaflets2 5y agoIf to some people this source code change provides helpful information, is it sabotage? If seen through their eyes? Eg about using Tor to get access to forbidden news. (Maybe the way it was done, won't work in practice, but if you pretend it worked, as a thought experiment?)
- runarberg 5y agoI would think so, for two reasons: First the web pages using this library are still disrupted (hence sabotaged), and second—a bit far fetched—the propaganda campaign and information gatekeeping efforts by the Russian government have been sabotaged with leaked information.