That's not the actual news here, because as I said, there's 0 insight on whatever they achieved. The emphasis was put on how bad it is to not let everybody in the US. Hence I believe this to be just some propaganda piece.
> supported by both national political parties and the sitting president.
This coming from a company from a country that can barely be considered to be democratic and that has the largest modern track record of interfering with foreign states' elections means that it holds very little value.
the article seemed rather reserved, flat, and emotionless to me. perhaps this feeling is just your reaction to the situation
organizations attempting to implement solutions or achieve progress on this issue are portrayed as irrational and occasionally prosecuted as domestic terrorists, so it makes sense that anyone might feel numb and stupid when thinking about the available options.
It's mainly meant as an illustration of the OP's "We never wanted Problem X, take it back to your country!" argument, which is simplistic and uninteresting.
We don't know that it's a nation state at all. Or that they were specifically targeting newspapers. So it seems a bit early to speculate on who it isn't.
Even if only for a relatively small region, this government blocked access to information and communications.
reply