6 ms·
Internet traffic in Iran increasing
- plazmatic 5mo ago[dead]
- mlmonkey 5mo agoI don't think the current regime has changed their policy out of the goodness of their hearts, or for the concerns of the citizenry. If I were to hazard a guess, I'm guessing it is so their army of digital burglars can wreak havoc on US sites, in retaliation for the bombings by the US. So I guess we can only expect more ransomware and more digital mayhem.
- gpm 5mo agoThe internet is a pretty critical economic tool. I'd imagine that a good portion of the reason is simply to let Iranian businesses function.
- whyage 5mo agoYou might be right; most of the traffic is bot-driven
- lysace 5mo agoThe more important aspect is that the regime now feels certain enough that they have killed enough of the internal opposition so that the security forces can handle rest even with open comms.
- tptacek 5mo agoIranian-sponsored threat actors have had network access throughout this entire conflict.
- lysace 5mo ago[flagged]
- platinumrad 5mo agoInsofar as it being regular citizens expression their opinions, yes, even if we might not agree with them. I wouldn't call that "pro-hamas propaganda".
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- lysace 5mo agoWhat would you call it?
- platinumrad 5mo agoThe same thing you would call people on this site expressing geopolitical opinions that half of the world might disagree with.
- t-3 5mo agoIf you think propaganda is why people are upset about Gaza, you don't understand the politics and history. Diasporas produce grassroots domestic interest and activism, no propaganda needed. 70 years of forcing people out of their homes makes for a pretty significant diasporic population.
- 866-RON-0-FEZ 5mo agoThanks for reminding everyone of the obvious. You'd think it wouldn't be necessary. The popular theory that all Iranian internet was shut off like Johnny pulling the plug out of the socket in Airplane is simplistic and beyond ludicrous.
- AznHisoka 5mo agoThat fact wasnt obvious to me.
- Laurel1234 5mo agoWouldn't regime glow in the darks have open access already? You'd imagine they'd run a whitelist or something.
- platinumrad 5mo agoI'm not a fan of the Iranian government at all but this is pure Iran Derangement Syndrome. If you thought about this for half a second you'd realize that their "army of digital burglars" has had internet access the entire time. No state, and especially not one that specializes in proxy warfare, is going to intentionally cripple its actors with the highest damage to plausible deniability ratio.
- dakolli 5mo ago[flagged]
- platinumrad 5mo agoIt's the middle of the night in the region, so I don't expect very many human internet users from Israel or Iran right now. This may also explain why so much of the traffic coming out of Iran is flagged as bot traffic. I agree that a significant portion of urban middle class Iranians have been online the entire time, but it's a group that is roughly analogous to the people in China who go out of their way to use a VPN.
- taneq 5mo agoWhat kind of crazy person would be on the internet on the middle of the night? None of us normal people would ever do that! cough cough
- dakolli 5mo ago[flagged]
- bluegatty 5mo ago"Don't fall for the trap where the US and Israel paints Iran as some authoritarian censor. The US is far more authoritarian" This is total delusion, honestly, it's why people in these systems will remain trapped for a long time. America has many problems but when people in places like Iran start on this bandwagon, it's evidence of inability to just weigh reality in the face of emotional rhetoric. Nobody is suggesting that Iran is 'committing genocide' - that's just something you made up, however, they have been killing protesters, this is very real. From Amnesty [1] (not exactly a pro US voice) Human Rights Watch [2] Amnesty and HRW indicate the state murdered at least thousands of protesters, and HRW has considerably more than that under investigation, there is plenty of evidence. There are 2000 drones that hit UAE and you hardly see a video, why? Because UAE officials are brutally oppressive about this. They threaten people with imprisonment and expulsion for any 'leaks' and they've been forcing social media personalities to push propaganda. That's just UAE, Iran is even more assertive. Press freedom index [3] Iran has a ruthlessly oppressive regime, not even comparable to that of the US. [1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/middle-east/iran/report-iran/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-af... [2] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/iran https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/iran [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
- t-3 5mo ago> Iran has a ruthlessly oppressive regime, not even comparable to that of the US. Not comparable in domestic affairs... in foreign affairs the situation is reversed. US is by far the most violent, untrustworthy, and oppressive in the world, while Iran looks pretty peaceful and harmless in comparison.
- bluegatty 5mo agoNo, this is hyperbole. Even with the terrible shenanigans of the last 1.5 years - the US is actually still the only thing that holds the world together. The reason it's hard to grasp is because we see 'horrible Trump regime' - and previous failures in Iraq but don't look at the underlying tectonic security foundation. DJT is Humpty Dumpty on a very entrenched wall. We live in a 'Post World War 2' system of relative peace which hasn't really happened in history. The US could have occupied and controlled 1/2 the world after World War 2 - it choose not to. This is the one of the most meaningful geopolitical actS in history - that framework actually still exists. Here are some Eisenhower quotes that capture the ideology [1], worth a read ('no nation before another' etc.). That's still the foundation. We mostly accept the notion of sovereignty because of this order. Freedom of navigation for example - is something that we take for granted, but that only exists because of a Western-led order with the US as the base of that. Even Vietnam - it was acted upon for the same reasons as Korea, but it was a mess and the US failed, were they to have been successful, we would look at it differently. There is no way to be an 'entirely benevolent power in all affairs' - it's always going to be a bit murky. It is a paradox that DJT has threatened Greenland (which is really all about him, nobody actually supports that) but the actions in Venezuela are not totally inconsistent with 'order' - it just so happens to be done by a leader with ulterior motives. The US did not stay in Iraq or 'acquire' it's vast Oil reserves. Up until President Humpty Dumpty - the US provided security for the Gulf for 80 years - again, almost unthinkable in the context of history. People have completely forgotten that the 'true point of instability' in the Middle East is Egypt vs. Israel. That's way, way more dangerous than Iran v. Israel - but we don't talk about it because the US has been 'bribing' Egypt for decades - still to this day - with billions in aid and support to keep the political system reasonably balanced. Without that - there would be constant war between Israel and Egypt, and Suez would be closed. If the US did not exist as a 'power' - then the world would be wild place - Ukraine would have been conquered long ago, at very least the Baltic states as well. Neither the Suez or Panama canal would exist as we understand them, and it's hard to even grasp what the world map would look like. And all of that despite Iraq, Afghanistan etc.. The world is shifting away from this, but not completely. The US will lose 'absolute centrality' but will not loose general centrality. [1] https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/eisenhowers/quotes https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/eisenhowers/quotes
- r721 5mo agoRelated post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48297937 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48297937
- nostrademons 5mo agoThe weird thing is: Iran seems to be acting like the war is ending, and that their peace plan has been accepted, and yet now it's the Trump administration that says it's all fake news. In the past the Trump administration has claimed the war was ending and Iran said (truthfully) it's all fake news. It makes me wonder if something has shifted with the internal power dynamics in Iran, and the civilian government at least is worried about being ousted if this continues. The usual reason why you would lie about peace being around the corner is to placate the citizenry and prevent them from revolting. Also relatedly, Trump is now doubling down on U.S. demands and threats of more military action. This is what you do if you sense your opponent is weak. Does U.S. intelligence know something we don't?
- Forgeties79 5mo ago> Also relatedly, Trump is now doubling down on U.S. demands and threats of more military action. This is what you do if you sense your opponent is weak. Does U.S. intelligence know something we don't? Hasn’t he done this every week since it started? He constantly bounces between “we’ve almost got a great deal” and “we are going to ABSOLUTELY OBLITERATE IRAN1!!!1!”
- cjbgkagh 5mo agoThere are many reasons to lie about peace being around the corner, it is the default norm. It is in part to place the blame of further conflicts on your enemies, i.e. I wanted peace but clearly they did not. There is a conflict of narratives and one way to help push your narrative is to act like it is the reality on the ground. Unless the US is going to send in a ground army or nuke Iran then all we have at the moment is a pointless stalemate and the longer this goes on the more people will be upset at Trump and Israel for creating this situation.
- twothreeone 5mo agoIsn't it also possible that this happened to be one of the explicit pre-conditions for a treaty by the US?
- nostrademons 5mo ago
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5mo agoThe US just struck them again at Bandar Abbas
- myth_drannon 5mo agoWhy is the bot traffic in Iran is so high -75%? I checked Argentina - 16%, Netherlands - 65%.
- zuzululu 5mo agoAny country watching Iran situation should take a way a few things: For one khamenei was known to be against nuclear weapons and was a sort of a peace keeper between hardliners leaning towards lifting sanctions but seems to have been forced into a lame duck through narratives inside and outside along with internal leaks. Two, its no longer possible to shut down the internet with Starlink. Those two were supposed to be backstops against any externally induced regime change. Now any country at odds with United States currently owning nukes is looking at escalating straight to warning shot doctrine. Having enriched uraniums or some land based ICBM is no longer enough. Something tactical and small enough to be used to limit nuclear fallout but make regional allies absolutely against engaging in war at behest of the US seems like it would test US nuclear umbrella. ex) Any NATO countries willing to have a low yield tactical nuke detonate near their border but inside a disputed territory/land? Which non-nuclear EU country is willing to erase themselves off the map to shield their European brothers?
- taneq 5mo agoRe. point 2: It is if you own Starlink. :S
- mgiampapa 5mo agoThe US Government can own and nationalize it in a heartbeat if they want to. Even other Billionaires hate Musk.
- whatever1 5mo agoI really thought that Russia would use such a device to end the war in Ukraine. Hopefully they will not.
- epistasis 5mo agoIf Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons it would not have been attacked, but there was never any risk of Russia using nuclear weapons. This is just one of many many ways that people in the west fundamentally misunderstand Russia, and why so many people made fools of themselves thinking that Putin would not invade. The other really big one is that Russia never admitted that it lost the Cold War and thinks the war is still going on, and that it's the fault of the US and others that Russia is so backwards and poor, not a result of their own mismanagement, the weakness of their people, and the general corruption.