I haven’t used Soulseek in 2 decades. IMO, this sort of behaviour is not legit.

Thanks for the suggestion. This looks like a very powerful tool. Curious to see how well it works.

For movies/TV shows, try rutracker.org. The interface is in russian, but the torrents almost always include english audio tracks for US/UK movies. Movies from other countries typically do include the original audio track and english subs.

They have a tone of older torrents, with some relatively rare content. There are some strange nuances such as SD rips are often posted with Xvid encoding (even new ones) and HD releases have a rule where they need to include all known russian Dubs/MVO/DVO/AVO audio track, so a large part of the file is audio.

But the good thing is that, even low health torrents often eventually have a seed appear.

They are decent for music too. Video games will likely be challenging if you don’t speak russian and many releases actually don’t include the original language.

You know nothing about me.

But please, feel free to keep LARPing as some sort of deep and empathetic individual.

Thank you for the kind words and support for Ukraine. It genuinely means a lot to me. We are having this back and forth and banter, but this a real point that means a lot.

I believe he was going to LATAM and he couldn’t continue while transiting through russia. But that’s beside the point. For me personally, I question his motives wrt revealing data on US surveillance following his collaboration with the russians. All local digital services (mobile phones, ISP, social media, streaming) are under the direct supervision their security services. It’s basically like the USSR. You can literally get 5 years in jail for social media post, sure this really become more common after 2022. But even back in 2012, they were well on their with establishing a digital surveillance regime.

Sure, it’s legitimate to criticize anything. But without taking all the circumstances into account, the critique loses relevance. At least for me it does, and that’s what I’m arguing.

Why is his collaborating with the russians not a fair circumstance to take in account? If he is being forced to work with them, then shouldn’t we disregard what he says as being suspect? Aren’t there better spokespersons for the FOSS/digital privacy movement that can be promoted instead?

And we’re back in the discussion at hand :) the only consequences I can think of, that comes from Snowden collaboration is the propaganda tool he is now, and the intelligence he had to offer 11 years ago. Disregard him to mitigate the propaganda consequences.

He is almost certainly trying to leverage his fame and influence to promote russian security services goals; i.e. try to sow discord in the US. Their approach is multi-dimensional; for example in europe they were involved with green organizations in order to counteract the possibility of a rise in shale gas production in Europe. That’s why it’s best to not give any attention to Snowden; he is a russian tool. I would even speculate that he has internalized a lot of their goals (he is a russian citizen after all).

I don’t think that I’m putting Snowden on a pedestal. All I’m saying is that, like everyone else in Russia, who have a public profile, Snowden knows that he can either toe the party line, or plunge to his death from a basement window. What we really need to do, is to realize that anything coming from the mouths of anybody in Russia, is the result of a proverbial gun to their heads and should be treated thusly.

While this is true, people most definitely put Snowden on the pedestal and do not critically approach his statements.

He chose to collaborate with them and promote their propaganda goals.

He could have refused.

While RMS does come off as provincial and somewhat delusional, he is a very smart and forward-looking fellow. I agree with his take on big corporation, privacy, freedom.

What I don’t agree with is promoting Snowden as a messenger for RMS’ viewpoints. You can’t have it both ways; he can’t be both forced to collaborate with the russians for his “survival” and be open in his statements. There are many other folks worth promoting who share RMS’ viewpoints.

There isn’t such a thing as “good surveillance”, or “better surveillance”, if you do surveillance you can’t pretend a position of moral superiority to others who do the same, even if you still don’t chase people who say certain things online, it’s on the horizon. Thanks to Snowden sacrifice we know some of the USA government surveillance. He didn’t “back down at the first sign of trouble”, what he did made him lose the life he had, I’d like to see you in his position.

This is where you have a very primitive and parochial take. Getting sent to jail via kangaroo court for a relatively moderate social media post is far more damaging than the impact of western surveillance. If you don’t understand this you are lost.

He did back down at the first sign of trouble. He chose to work with the russian security services when things got rough. He had other choices, go back to the US, refuse to work with the russians and just let them know that he would prefer to keep quiet.

You seem to have a very “hollywood” interpretation of russian security services. Yes, they are brutal, but their propaganda/communication outreach is not some “star wars antagonist” type bullshit. They see value in Snowden, simply executing him or even sending him to jail would undermine this value for them.

I will add that (most?) MLs don’t openly claim support for the russians, but their positions and rhetoric is almost always pro-russian imperialism.

The “nato provoked Russia” argument is for idiots who don’t know russians, don’t anything about russian history and culture and who have never lived.

Thanks for taking the time to read.

All good man.

I probably come off as a bit categorical, but I have my reasons for this. A lot of the foreign policy positions of western leftists make me question whether they are sincere (or even in their right minds) when it comes to social/economic issues; where I am somewhat more in alignment (w.r.t. corruption, oligarchs and the need for radicalism in resolving the aforementioned points) with them.

Cheers!

Keep LARPing buddy!

Nah, your logic is virtue signalling.

You don’t want compromised inviduals promoting your points; there are many other who have a measure of consistency in their beliefs and don’t back down (to a regime that makes US surveillance seem like a walk in the park) at the first sign of trouble.

If you don’t want to make such choices, then don’t get involved in activism. It’s very simple.

I genuinely want to believe you, but my attitude towards western leftists has radically changed after the full scale invasion. That being said I actually hold pretty strong anti-oligarch views that are not taken well by the vast majority of Americans (lived in north america for 10 years, travelled extensively). Great place, great country, lots to see, but it’s extremely corrupt and people are heavily brainwashed by oligarch word salad and overly focused on the PR component of various widgets/services/companies. But the reactions I saw (not everyone in the US, Sanders has a pretty sober take on russia) made western leftism a bridge too far for me.

I’ve discussed Varoufakis in a reply to your other post. One other example would be Corbyn and his supporters; they pretty much de facto support russian imperialist (they make vague statements that imply otherwise, but it’s a ruse). Many German leftists are also largely aligned with russian imperialist goals.

There is also the issue that I don’t just oppose the russian government. Based on my personal experiences living in russia for 10 years and seeing how former friends reacted in 2014 (and 2008 for that matter) and a wide range of sociological research, I have come to the conclusion that:

• At the very least a strong majority (~65%) of russians are genocidal imperialists. As per research, preference falsification is largely overstate by polemicists and is not a significant issue. The real question is whether genocidal imperialists constitution an overwhelming majority or a very strong majority.
• Russia is not going to change (based on the statements and actions of the allegedly “liberal” opposition and extensive knowledge of russian history). Putin is going to die in 15 years and someone else similar or worse will take his place. The russians will never do anything to change this dynamic. They had a unique chance with the relatively peaceful breakup of the USSR and we saw what they did. At any rate, I am not going to risk my life entertaining foolish fantasies.

I will end this post with quote from a Ukrainian solider who died in the summer of 2022 (it’s commonly misattributed to the former Ukrainian ambassador to Kazakhstan):

The more russians we kill today, the fewer russians will have to be killed by our children

Yeah, I might consider an alternative instance, just for the sake of the general spirit of federated service. I already have Lemmy.world account, but I create multiple accounts depending on topics of interest (works really well with Firefox containers too).

I should have been a bit more clear when I said “Varoufakis is just the tip of the iceberg”, what I meant is that he is somewhat more empathetic than you typical western “leftist”.

That being said, if you read the details of his proposals regarding Ukraine (I will note he doesn’t speak Ukrainian, or russian, and has never lived in Ukraine, let alone Donbas), you can very quickly identify tankie-lite type gibberish.

The same article that you seem to quote also says:

And I hope that those whose politics differ from mine do the likewise: place the task of pushing Russian troops out of Ukraine above their ideological preferences (e.g. a Ukraine that is a NATO or an EU member).

Everyone in Ukraine wants to join NATO and EU. This is complete bullshit. But this is relatively modest stuff, it gets better:

This is not to suggest that the Ukrainian fighters should surrender. No, if I were them, I would keep fighting come-what-may, to the bitter end. What I am saying is something different: That a diplomatic solution needs to be found as soon as possible.

The bitter end can be avoided by providing our country with any needed western weapons (including long range cruise missile) and providing us with both the right to strike the russians (anywhere in russia) and any relevant intel info to do so. This is already happening, but it took nearly 2.5 years, with a lot of slow walking (and a lot of death and destruction due to the delay). Varoufakis cannot even comprehend the possibility that weapons and the ability to strike your enemy is important when you are being invaded.

Given that NATO will not intervene, and that sanctions take a long, long time to succeed (if at all), the only way of driving Russian troops out of the Ukraine is through a diplomatic solution.

What would an agreeable diplomatic solution entail? Three things: First, an immediate ceasefire followed by the withdrawal of Russian troops. Second, the opportunity for Putin to portray any such agreement as a form of victory – a deal that gives him something close to what he wanted. Third, it must be an agreement guaranteed jointly by Washington and Moscow, guaranteeing an independent and neutral Ukraine as part of a broader agreement that de-escalates tensions with the Baltics, Poland, around the Black Sea, across Europe.

An immediate ceasefire followed by the withdrawal of russian troops? They are just going to leave? There is no way this statement was done without malicious intent. Ukraine was neutral before 2014; guess what happened to change this?

Such an agreement would leave everyone a little dissatisfied but also grant Ukrainians the chance to re-build a free, democratic and independent Ukraine. Many issues will have to be settled but, once de-escalation begins, a healing process can commence. For example, the EU can pour investments into Ukraine, well before any move to admit it into the EU. Once Washington and Moscow jointly guarantee a de-militarized zone along the Russian-Ukrainian border, the contested Donetsk-Luhansk region could be administered along the lines of the Northern Irish Good Friday agreement in a manner that guarantees the rights of all ethnic communities under the supervision of Kiyv, Moscow and the European Union.

Once again Varoufakis demonstrates his malicious intent. Russia is not interested de-escalation and Varoufakis knows this. The Good Friday part is comical. It’s like a satirical comedy show about western “leftists” talking about Ukraine.

Now this article was written in 2022, but even in 2024, he continues to think in russo-centric terms. Here is an article from Jan 2024:

…advocated for the West to negotiate an immediate end of the Ukraine war by trading the retreat of Russian troops for a pledge to keep Ukraine out of NATO. To me, what mattered most was that the West did whatever it took to push Russia’s troops back to where they were on 22 February 2022, while enabling Ukraine to flourish within liberal democratic Western Europe.

He is still rambling on about NATO and advocating for a return to the line on Feb 22. Don’t get me wrong, I think we will be very lucky to get back to those lines by the end of the war, but it’s russo-centric, pro-imperialist worldview that makes me wonder whether everything else he says is just bullshit.

I just realized the lemmy.ml stands for Marxism-Leninism.

I recently joined Lemmy (realized that Reddit is going to turn to shit and I need alternatives) and created an account with Lemmy.ml because they had a lot of active tech communities.

Tankies are a no-go for me as I am Ukrainian. Even mainstream leftists, who generally have good ideas, like Yanis Varoufakis, turn into complete degenerates when it comes to NATO or Russian imperialism. And Varoufakis is just the tip of the iceberg.

Seems like I will need to create a new Lemmy.world account for technology communities.

Assange has also worked directly on russian payroll (he had a program on RT) and has basically admitted that he supports russian imperialism (not in such an explicit manner, but we are all adults here). Not to mention he had no issues undermining the safety of whole multitude of people in his leaks as part of his quest for fame.

Snowden knew (or should have known) what he is signing up for. Collaborating with the russians (whose internal control of local internet services and jailing of people for social media posts makes the US look reasonable and human rights focused) is not right.

And even from a pragmatic standpoint; let’s say I believed all the stories about Snowden not having any other options (I speculate that he actually supports russian imperialism and their methods); why should anything he says be given any attention?

Tomorrow the russians might tell him that he needs to promote that Stallman is evil pedophile and Adobe are a great company. You’re saying he will suddenly reject their orders and refuse to execute them?

What is your logic here?

Then don’t collaborate with the russians.

There is no reason to believe this would be the case, see Chelsea Manning.

He could have return to the US. Instead he chose to help the russians; why do feel that he is beyond criticism for this?

Yes, he could indeed. He could be the metaphorical guy with the bags standing in front of a line tanks. But why should he?

He can make his choices. And we can evaluate them and label him as a hypocrite and mouthpiece of the russian security services.

If you insist on applying a purely theoretical analysis, on the actions of a very real person with very real concerns for his safety, then I think I’ve found the problem with this discussion. You can’t lift this problem to this level of abstract theoretical morality.

But to answer your question more clearly: no, I don’t see how this perceived hypocrisy could be important for others.

Do you sincerely believe, that Snowden should have stayed put and faced a firing squad for whistle blowing? Snowden is trying to survive, and if daddy Putin says “go on TV and say these lines”, then the sentence doesn’t have to end with “or else”. Snowden did what he had to do for his country, by telling the public about the surveillance, now he’s paying for it. Why should Snowden be fighting for the Russian people as well?

Cut the bullshit with “very real concerns” and all that jazz. It is not convincing. No one is asking him to fight for the russian people. What I am saying is it is legitimate to criticize him and highlight his collaboration with the russians.

Well let me tell you as someone living in Ukraine (and was born in Donbas with my hometown being occupied in 2014 and relatives having to leave everything because of the russian occupation); you’re just playing dumb. You full well know that there are real consequences from Snowden’s collaboration with the russians.

I brought up “theory” to try and engage with you. To highlight the possibility that there are other perspectives and your thinking might be parochial.

Trying to survive is fair. But putting him on the pedestal and labelling him as “untouchable saviour who can do wrong” is not normal.