3 ms·

You say "free and open media" and refer to RT, which is state sponsored media from RT. Media from a country that kills journalist and bans independent media. Yo

You say "free and open media" and refer to RT, which is state sponsored media from RT. Media from a country that kills journalist and bans independent media. You're so angry at the EU for banning state sponsored media. Where is your anger at Russia for killing journalists and banning independent media?

aa-jv 5y ago
Whataboutism works both ways, come on. It is OUR access to media that is being censored - it is OUR free media market that is being repressed. Russia isn't doing this to us, we're doing it to ourselves. YOU say their media is from a country that kills journalists (as does ours) and bans independent media (as does ours) - it can be said about any of the major powers today. This is precisely why we must question what we are being told - but we can't do that if we don't have access to the original sources on the subject. I don't believe RT propaganda is necessarily going to sway my opinion about anything, any less than CNN would .. but thats a decision I want to make for myself - I don't need autocratic talking heads making it for me.
- lostmsu 5y ago
  > autocratic talking heads Hold your horses. You are talking about democratically elected governments here. There's nothing autocratic in this action, it is democratic in nature. The courts might still overrule it and require a parliamentary vote or a referendum, and I am almost sure it will pass. In a way it is similar to children programming. When you turn 18 you don't magically become aware of what is going on. But most regular programming for most people by that age can no longer hurt them or break their psyche. However, footage explicitly designed to fool can instill FUD on many people, possibly even the majority. I think banning outright propaganda machines is justified. Too bad there is no legal framework for that, but it should not prevent an executive action when the need is dire and the intent to violate is obvious.
  - aa-jv 5y ago
    Who voted to ban Russian media in the West?
    - lostmsu 5y ago
      I am sorry for not being more clear, but it is an executive action performed by democratically elected government. It can still be overruled in courts. If it is not, and people of those countries disagree, they can always vote for a different government in the next election. This is a common democratic process for something that needs to be done urgently when existing legal framework does not allow it, and developing the said framework would take too long.

aa-jv 5y ago

Whataboutism works both ways, come on. It is OUR access to media that is being censored - it is OUR free media market that is being repressed. Russia isn't doing this to us, we're doing it to ourselves. YOU say their media is from a country that kills journalists (as does ours) and bans independent media (as does ours) - it can be said about any of the major powers today. This is precisely why we must question what we are being told - but we can't do that if we don't have access to the original sources on the subject. I don't believe RT propaganda is necessarily going to sway my opinion about anything, any less than CNN would .. but thats a decision I want to make for myself - I don't need autocratic talking heads making it for me.

lostmsu 5y ago
> autocratic talking heads Hold your horses. You are talking about democratically elected governments here. There's nothing autocratic in this action, it is democratic in nature. The courts might still overrule it and require a parliamentary vote or a referendum, and I am almost sure it will pass. In a way it is similar to children programming. When you turn 18 you don't magically become aware of what is going on. But most regular programming for most people by that age can no longer hurt them or break their psyche. However, footage explicitly designed to fool can instill FUD on many people, possibly even the majority. I think banning outright propaganda machines is justified. Too bad there is no legal framework for that, but it should not prevent an executive action when the need is dire and the intent to violate is obvious.
- aa-jv 5y ago
  Who voted to ban Russian media in the West?
  - lostmsu 5y ago
    I am sorry for not being more clear, but it is an executive action performed by democratically elected government. It can still be overruled in courts. If it is not, and people of those countries disagree, they can always vote for a different government in the next election. This is a common democratic process for something that needs to be done urgently when existing legal framework does not allow it, and developing the said framework would take too long.