3 ms·
That's an oddly specific example, did this happen somewhere?
by riidom 5y ago
That's an oddly specific example, did this happen somewhere?
- ajsnigrutin 5y agoIt was just an example of a public utility blocking access to a service they disagree with, but the service is still legal. The first idea was EU blocking rt.com (and some other russian sites), even though their content is perfectly legal, but EU doesn't want the people to look at that content there.
- Steltek 5y agoI doubt you're going to win your argument using RT as an example. We're one whoopsie away from war. That's very different than regular censorship.
- ajsnigrutin 5y agoWe're always one whoopsie away from a war, and some of us (i'm from the balkans) have had a few whoopsies not that long ago here and not that far from my location. Globally speaking, in the same time, US (and nato and other "allies") attacked quite a few other countries, iraq, afghanistan, syria, libya, they're bombing somalia, bombed pakistan, etc., and none of the media was blocked back then. Even the taliban are allowed to maintain their twitter accounts ( https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-twitter-allows-taliban-maintain-142546810.html?guccounter=1 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-twitter-allows-taliban-ma... ). And now, we're blocking RT, for what?
- jermaustin1 5y agoEU was sanctioning Russia, and cut off sources of income (advertising and eyeballs) to a Russian state media organization. Not because they didn't want people to look at the content, but because they are going along with sanctions.
- ajsnigrutin 5y agoAdvertising income can be dealt with differently, but 'eyeballs' is effectivly political censorship, which was until now a thing of the "bad guys" (political dictators, etc.). I mean, even the taliban are allowed to keep their twitter accounts - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-twitter-allows-taliban-maintain-142546810.html?guccounter=1 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-twitter-allows-taliban-ma... - but not russia?