17 ms·
Russian news channel RT to broadcast on Rumble after Big Tech curbs
- jbverschoor 5y agoGood. It's insane that the west is calling out censorship from Russia, but is doing the exact same thing itself.
- NicoJuicy 5y agoIt's pure propaganda by now. Even journalists of RT in the West decided to quit their job ( publicly announced through Twitter), because it went insane.
- pyronik19 5y agoIt'd be nice if the "journalist" at CNN had the same kind of integrity.
- NicoJuicy 5y agoCNN is not a state owned propaganda machine.
- gadders 5y agoI think the accusation would be that it is party-owned.
- NicoJuicy 5y agoCNN is also not party owned... It may have similar views to eg. democrats, but that's not even remotely similar. Eg. They aired unedited coverages of many of the Trump campaign rallies. Show me one 'Ukraine is in war' topic in RT and Russia invaded Ukraine. Which is literally what happened. Note: Yeah, thought so.
- logicchains 5y ago>Show me one 'Ukraine is in war' topic in RT and Russia invaded Ukraine. Which is literally what happened. Show me one "How NATO's push eastward scared Russia into war" on CNN.
- _kbh_ 5y agoIs this why they invaded Georgia in 2008?. Russia sure as a habit of invading former soviet states them claiming some rubbish as a justification why.
- foverzar 5y agoHow does Georgian invasion of South Ossetia, protected by Russia under Sochi agreement, constitute as "rubbish justification"?
- lawn 5y agoUkraine is in fact in war, and it was not NATOs push eastward that forced Russia into war. So they're not at all the same.
- david422 5y agoRussia is doing whatever it wants and then putting the blame elsewhere. The responsibility lies 100% with Russia.
- myko 5y ago> Show me one "How NATO's push eastward scared Russia into war" on CNN. The only time this comes up on CNN is when they show Putin saying it and talk about what a bullshit lie it is. The fact is Putin wants to reestablish the Russian Empire. This was just one of the myriad excuses he used to invade. Repeating it is repeating Putin's propaganda, which is the job of his propaganda groups RT/Sputnik/etc
- foverzar 5y ago> talk about what a bullshit lie it is And everyone happily consumes this, as no one has their own opinion anymore. Doesn't make it less of a concern from security perspective of Russia. Frankly, this kind of chauvinistic attitude is one of the main actual reasons of why Russian-Western relations had degraded to this point. All of this had already been predicted by political experts all over the world almost 20 years ago. > The fact is Putin wants to reestablish the Russian Empire Please don't state such ridiculous assertions as facts.
- programmarchy 5y agoRight, it’s owned by a financial elite who also have control over the state. In China and Russia, there’s a managerial class who run the state and have control over the financial elite.
- keymone 5y agoAre you for real comparing integrity of CNN and RT? Show me a single outright lie CNN published, comparable to RT publishing a story that ukrainian army crucified a child on a main square in 2014 which caused some people in russia to volunteer as fighters and cross the border with intention of killing ukrainians. Edit: here, educate yourself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucified_boy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucified_boy
- pyronik19 5y agoDonald Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 election was an outright lie pumped for years on CNN on a daily basis.
- coffeeblack 5y agoSome have, not only at CNN. However, the level of propaganda on RT is very different.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jd115 5y ago
- username3 5y ago“All news sources are partially propaganda, some more than others” -https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499982913949081600 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499982913949081600
- HarryHirsch 5y agoSaul among the prophets
- bigodbiel 5y agoCNN’s coverage of the conflict has really been spectacular, it’s sad that they only shine during troubled times like these.
- rvz 5y ago> you're an imbecile. Ad Hominem. The mainstream media has that history of spreading its own 'peacefully protesting propaganda' and other lies from the past decade or so. Too many to list here. No different to RT.
- adolph 5y agoAnd tell us the word for a person who resorts to name calling?
- keymone 5y agoSince when blocking enemy's propaganda considered "bad"?
- shabier 5y agoSo North Korea is doing good then
- keymone 5y agosure, from their perspective they are. but they are a tyrannical dictatorship - we know that. don't we? do you? just checking, because, you know...
- shabier 5y ago> because, you know... No, please, do tell. Does a different stance make you fascist? Or does it make you pro-Putin? Or are you about to accuse me of being paid for taking a different stance? You've already called me "fcking piece of sht garbage of a human" in a different thread. Ironic.
- keymone 5y agoit would explain a lot about you if you don't consider north korea a tyrannical dictatorship. so do you or do you not?
- shabier 5y agoWhich part of "So North Korea is doing good then" do you not understand? Earlier, you said "sure, from their perspective they are" in reply to "So North Korea is doing good then". I suppose that your agreement with tyrannical dictatorships explains more about you than anyone else.
- keymone 5y agoit's war. just like north korea would launch missiles during war, they would block enemy propaganda during war. doing the same doesn't make you tyrannical dictatorship - it's just means of waging war. weird that i have to explain basics of logic to you. or maybe not weird at all..
- disambiguation 5y agoIt's not really insane, it's a difficult dilemma. To play devils advocate, why should we give our enemies the same rights as our neighbors? Both cohorts are not held accountable in the same ways, nor can we expect our enemies to reciprocate the same good faith. I think in principle free speech is good, but RT news - and any and all messaging coming out of Russia - should be classified as such. If said propaganda is disguised as genuine sentiment on social media then that's bad for free speech.
- jbverschoor 5y agoLet’s block all advertorials or posts that are biased. Ads used to be called “commercial propaganda”
- disambiguation 5y agoThat's not what I'm suggesting. The problem is ultimately anonymity, and people trusting anonymous posts as face value. If we had a rigorous identity layer, a lot of this would be resolved.
- jbverschoor 5y agoPeople also trust non-anonymous posts. You just have to form your own view based on several sources, and try to verify / dismiss some of them. Put everything together, hopefully not like in the movies (wall full of pictures, thumbtacks, and rope)
- disambiguation 5y agoSure identified sources can be bad actors too, but that doesn't really matter w.r.t free speech. For one, the effects are asymmetric. Anonymous bad actors can do more harm than identified sources can do good. Identity discourages bad behavior. Second, free speech and other ideals of liberalism assume that people are fundamentally good. So if the identified sources are openly bad actors such that they out weigh the good actors, then you're kind of screwed regardless.
- anomie31 5y agoNo one in the US government is forcing their hand here, and freedom of speech includes freedom from compelled speech, or the compelled platforming of others.
- coffeeblack 5y agoGood. It’s important to be able to see all sides. Everybody with a brain will know to be very skeptical of any news source directly controlled by a government. Same is true for CGTN and other channels still on YT.
- lnsru 5y agoIt’s a wishful thinking, that everybody has some brain. There are enough flatearthers, antivaxers and wannabe putin’s buddies.
- kyrra 5y agoSilencing ideas that you do not agree with does not lead to an open society. Because guess what, the less popular ideas ends up being the right one sometimes. (In this case I agree that RT is likely propaganda, but knowing an argument you disagree with makes it easier to argue against people that make it.)
- throw_m239339 5y agoEvery media is propaganda. RT is directly financed by the Kremlin just like CNN is at the behest of the current American administration. It's absurd to think any of these channels will not try to manipulate their audience. What is certain on the other hand is that it is Russia which invaded Ukraine, a free country, at first place. What is also certain is that any news organization in Russia that doesn't follow the Kremlin's narrative is deemed criminal by Russian authorities.
- iforgetti 5y agoWhile I agree with the sentiment of your comment, I do not agree that a government financed news station is in fact "just like" CNN providing favorable coverage to the current administration presumably in exchange for access or similar. In the case of CNN, we see the collective bias of those who run the company optimizing coverage for engagement based on their assessment of the bias of those watching. In the case of RT, we literally know that guests or anchors who do not work to legitimize propaganda are at risk of physical retribution.
- jessaustin 5y agoI'm afraid this may be out of date. Lee Camp said Saturday on Unauthorized Disclosure [0] that RT America was done. [EDIT:] I suppose that is a different entity from RT itself. So, it seems the synchronized censorship (DirectTV, Roku, Spotify, YT Europe) has achieved its real aim, of silencing American critics of capitalism, imperialism, and war. That the mouthpiece of a different imperialist regime remains available is a trivial matter. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=104ZygfOHZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=104ZygfOHZg
- simion314 5y agoQuick question, most countries have laws on how media should work, like what can you put on public TV at what hours, how to mark certain content, rules that demand to always provide both sides perspective and punishments if you don't follow the rules, like removing your TV license. Did we allow this new media to just ignore our laws and publish one sided fabricated news? Maybe is finally the time to block stuff that is not media, or force them to label their content as "fiction/fabrication" And someone will say "what about XYZ?", yes label Xyz fiction too if it does not follow the rules. With national media that exists physically here you can have the justice system give them big fines if they for example fabricate bullshit about a person/company but if this media is some freelancers far away the justice will never reach them so we should do something before we reach the scenario in Idicracy
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago> rules that demand to always provide both sides perspective Not sure what country you're referring to, but there's certainly no such rule in the US, Australia, or the UK. In the US it would be unconstitutional.
- vmind 5y agoThe UK at least has legislation which applies during elections and referendums (https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-six-elections-referendums https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-co...).
- jlokier 5y agoGood point. That doesn't force covering "both sides" of every issue though, in the way people often mean by "fair and balanced" in these discussions, where every issue needs to have a counterpoint aired. The UK election rules are more about ensuring all the candidates for election get some representative airtime, and that overtly political advertisements are labelled as such during the election period, so a channel is not allowed to promote one party and completely block out another, or be monopolised by advertising funds. (There's also a very short quiet period just before the voting takes place.) If all parties generally agree on something, the opposing view to that is unlikely to get much airtime, even if someone not running for office would really like to talk about it.
- yrgulation 5y agoThe fact that pro putin’s propaganda channel comments are getting upvoted, while those against are downvoted says a lot about the type of people that use this forum. Russia today and sputnik constantly promote anti western values, politicians and groups and are a major source of misinformation yet some call banning these weapons of war censorship. Appalling.
- iso1210 5y agoHN has some of the most pro-putin comments I see anywhere. These are established accounts with years of history talking about tech, so not Russian bots or whatever.
- mopsi 5y agoNot everyone is a paid shill. Lots of tech people are Russians and/or from Russia and support the war in Ukraine. Independent polling shows that the majority of people in Russia support the war, including the majority of the highly educated.
- keymone 5y agoThere is no sociology in a dictatorship where everybody knows about repercussions of expressing an opinion that goes against their glorious leader's will.
- jlokier 5y ago> Independent polling shows that the majority of people in Russia support the war, including the majority of the highly educated. Is there any independent polling in Russia? Is it even possible? I am under the impression the penalties for being against the war are severe and getting worse, to the point that even having messages on your phone about it could get you into trouble if stopped and searched by Moscow police. Who in their right mind would answer a poll question honestly in Russia now? There is also the question of whether Russians even know there's a war where Russia is the aggressor against a democratic state, and attacking civilians. There are by now many reports of people in Russia who simply don't believe that's what's happening - instead they think there is no war, that it's a lie propagated by Western aggressors against Russia, and that Russian soldiers are in Ukraine to liberate the people. If I were in Russia and asked my view, and highly educated for real on the actual circumstances, I'd answer that I was pro special military operation (what war?) because there's a chance the person asking is special police and I might end up in prison - or provoke an investigation which gets my friends into prison - if I say anything else.
- paulvnickerson 5y agoI'm glad to see the alternative tech companies (Rumble, Truth Social) that promote truly free spread and competition of ideas, and that they are surviving (RIP Parlor). If Facebook, Youtube, etc. insist on restricting thought and discussion on their platforms, it will be to their detriment.
- shabier 5y agoAgreed. It is much easier to be aware of what the other side is thinking and, if the situation or platform allows it, to challenge those ideas.
- IE6 5y agoAnecdotally, in my experience you are just as likely to be banned / shadowbanned on these kinds of "free speech" networks as well. The only thing that changes is who is pressing the keys and what message they want you to hear. I think referring to them as such is problematic.
- chayesfss 5y agoIn before irate trumpkins compare rt with cnn/msnbc while ignoring the fact that fox news is 100% legal to operate. Oh wait, too late.
- dang 5y agoFlamewar comments will get you banned on HN, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Fortunately you don't seem to have much (any?) history of posting like the above, so it should be easy to fix.