3 ms·

We just had RT and Sputnik taken off the air by regulators in the EU. And why would it be alright if a business did it?

awb 5y ago
> And why would it be alright if a business did it? Because it’s a free market. If the company isn’t a monopoly, it’s a slight inconvenience if you have to go somewhere else, it’s not censorship. You can still access the content and say what you want about it somewhere else. The opposite is almost impossible to enforce. Look at book stores. They can’t sell every single book because of physical and practical limitations. You’d also be preventing niche bookstores like ones that only cater to cookbooks. You can’t force a business to accept everything anyone wants to say no matter what. In a free market businesses are allowed to create the customer experience they desire. This Russian law is what censorship looks like. A complete banning of a word or topic — with the power to enforce that ban. Private businesses have no jurisdiction over the decisions of another free market business. I think the RT and Sputnik bans had the added component of being a state-owned revenue stream for Russia and therefore a not so indirect financier of the invasion. You can still access the websites for free.
- lenkite 5y ago
  > Because it’s a free market. You should remove the word "free". It's just a market but there is little to no freedom. Anyone holding a stance outside the acceptable one is neutered very quickly. Political parties have direct access to media leadership and effectively give orders to satisfy a narrative that are faithfully carried out.
  - awb 5y ago
    No, I stand by the fact that it’s a free market. If you’re talking about the news or opinions, it’s easier than ever for anyone to make content accessible to the masses. Create a self-hosted blog and write whatever speech you want that’s protected by the 1st amendment and promote it worldwide. There are way more independent journalists than ever before in history. And you aren’t entitled to demand to see your views reflected in the NYT or WSJ. If your views aren’t being promoted widely enough, you can start your own opinion paper and it will succeed or fail based on the invisible hand of the market. The problem I think is when people with very niche views want to bypass the free market and just demand that everyone else on a certain platform be subjected to their views. You can say what you want on your own property, at your own business or in the public square, but you don’t have a right to insist that a 3rd party company promote and distribute your personal views.
TheCoelacanth 5y ago
Preventing a hostile foreign power from running a propaganda campaign against you is not what most people mean by censorship. The citizens and residents of the EU are still free to broadcast whatever they want.

awb 5y ago

> And why would it be alright if a business did it? Because it’s a free market. If the company isn’t a monopoly, it’s a slight inconvenience if you have to go somewhere else, it’s not censorship. You can still access the content and say what you want about it somewhere else. The opposite is almost impossible to enforce. Look at book stores. They can’t sell every single book because of physical and practical limitations. You’d also be preventing niche bookstores like ones that only cater to cookbooks. You can’t force a business to accept everything anyone wants to say no matter what. In a free market businesses are allowed to create the customer experience they desire. This Russian law is what censorship looks like. A complete banning of a word or topic — with the power to enforce that ban. Private businesses have no jurisdiction over the decisions of another free market business. I think the RT and Sputnik bans had the added component of being a state-owned revenue stream for Russia and therefore a not so indirect financier of the invasion. You can still access the websites for free.

lenkite 5y ago
> Because it’s a free market. You should remove the word "free". It's just a market but there is little to no freedom. Anyone holding a stance outside the acceptable one is neutered very quickly. Political parties have direct access to media leadership and effectively give orders to satisfy a narrative that are faithfully carried out.
- awb 5y ago
  No, I stand by the fact that it’s a free market. If you’re talking about the news or opinions, it’s easier than ever for anyone to make content accessible to the masses. Create a self-hosted blog and write whatever speech you want that’s protected by the 1st amendment and promote it worldwide. There are way more independent journalists than ever before in history. And you aren’t entitled to demand to see your views reflected in the NYT or WSJ. If your views aren’t being promoted widely enough, you can start your own opinion paper and it will succeed or fail based on the invisible hand of the market. The problem I think is when people with very niche views want to bypass the free market and just demand that everyone else on a certain platform be subjected to their views. You can say what you want on your own property, at your own business or in the public square, but you don’t have a right to insist that a 3rd party company promote and distribute your personal views.

TheCoelacanth 5y ago

Preventing a hostile foreign power from running a propaganda campaign against you is not what most people mean by censorship. The citizens and residents of the EU are still free to broadcast whatever they want.