3 ms·

>> there is no objective yardstick by which to measure which country is worse. That can't be intellectually honest. There are lots of metrics. E.g. human righ

• dleslie 10y ago
  There is no objective yardstick because the ethical conditions are subjective. For instance, in this very thread it is evident that agreement cannot be found upon whether or not cooperating with Government agencies on messaging is an unethical journalistic practice[0]. There are many metrics, but very few of them are objective; that doesn't mean that those which are not objective are not meaningful, but it means that finding agreement is likely impossible. To be clear: I do not believe that Russia is in the right, in terms of their concealed use of propaganda. That does not mean I must hold my nose and accept that the Americans engage in clandestine propaganda in collusion with private media. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12379153 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12379153
  • berntb 10y ago
    >> There is no objective yardstick because the ethical conditions are subjective. So the yardsticks measuring differences between dictatorships and dictators are relative..? THAT is an uncommon claim these days -- it was common before 1989, from communists supporting Soviet. And then you ignored my examples: - Human rights - State control of media - Personal freedom indexes - Risks for critical journalists to be murdered This is just funny.
    • berntb 10y ago
      s/relative/just subjective/