8 ms·

RT isn’t banned because we don’t like what it says - it’s banned because it’s a part of information war. It’s not media - you won’t find there a single fact yo

by trasz 4y ago

RT isn’t banned because we don’t like what it says - it’s banned because it’s a part of information war. It’s not media - you won’t find there a single fact you wouldn’t get from western media. Which, btw, is very obvious when you actually look at RT. It’s a (more American than Russian for some reason) right wing sewage pool in the comments and some Daily Mail level “journalism” above.

vogre 4y ago
>it’s banned because it’s a part of information war Yup, just call anything you don't like "russian disinformation", and you are free to ban it, easy.
- ptr 4y ago
  So, what are we supposed to do with actual Russian disinformation? Or are you saying it doesn’t exist?
  - miracle2k 4y ago
    You let it be published and broadcast, like a normal free country would.
    - ptr 4y ago
      I’m sorry but people in general aren’t critical thinkers — broadcasting false and misleading communication should be avoided since it’s extremely dangerous. See the storming of the Capitol Building. It’s especially dangerous when that communication is meant to undermine your country and what your country stands for.
      - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        ptr 4y ago
        Relevance? Why do you feel a need to pull out such arguments when we have a complete war criminal over in the kremlin?
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        It's relevant, because we didn't ban western media (well, our own) back then, for spreading false propaganda (ending in many many deaths), and we're banning RT now, because it's "them" and not "us". If we hate false news/propaganda/... then ban cnn (and many other media), but we clearly want (and allow) "that kind" of propaganda, just not the russian one.
        josephcsible 4y ago
        There's a big difference between intentionally lying and saying things that you honestly believed but turned out to be false.
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        I mean honestly.... I know it's not bbc, but still: https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2022/may/17/evacuation-of-azovstal-plant-in-mariupol-in-pictures https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2022/may/17/evacua... Look at the headline image, the title ("evacuated"), and the "feels" that they're trying to produce. And the reality? They surrendered and were taken as prisoners of war to siberia. If someone has surrendered, i want our media to report "surrendered" and if they were taken as prisoners, I want to see "prisoners" mentioned somewhere... I have no idea what they were trying to achieve with an article like this, but it sure as hell wasn't truthful reporting.
        CamperBob2 4y ago
        Whataboutism is a longstanding Russian doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
      - throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
        so then why do we have this conversation at all? Russia has done nothing wrong, it's just protecting its own dumb proles from false and misleading information meant to undermine their country and what it stands for. I delight in the irony
        ptr 4y ago
        Maybe that’s what it all comes down to if you can’t reference “truth”. People can pick the side that appears to be the lesser evil.
    - simion314 4y ago
      In my free country media has to obey rules. There are rules for porn, ads, defamation, bad language. Not sure where youa re from that media can has no rules and they can publish anything without any consequences.
      - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        But that media is not in your free country, it's hosted outside. You're banning people connecting to servers in other countries, hosted under their laws.
        simion314 4y ago
        That is irrelevant, Google, PornHub respect the local laws if they want to do business here. I don't think my country constitution protects the free speech of Russian media, they can spawn a local media and then follow the local laws if they want constitutional protection, but just to emphasize in my country TV channels were closed because they ignored the laws too many times and fail to pay their fines. Also no need to pretend you don't know what Russian version of the "facts" are, you can find what their claim in media and social networks. But in Russia world each fact might be in a superposition of 3 realities, the initial Russian fake reports, then when caught the second altered fake report , and the third convoluted fake version where the army of trolls found all their previous holes and patch them with more idiotic falsehoods. 2
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        > That is irrelevant, Google, PornHub respect the local laws if they want to do business here But they don't do business "here", they do their business "there". We're "here" and connecting to their service "there". EU doesn't want us to connect to their business "there". > Also no need to pretend you don't know what Russian version of the "facts" are, you can find what their claim in media and social networks. But in Russia world each fact might be in a superposition of 3 realities, the initial Russian fake reports, then when caught the second altered fake report , and the third convoluted fake version where the army of trolls found all their previous holes and patch them with more idiotic falsehoods. I was born in yugoslavia, I know how the government-lead media is. And that's another reason to not-censor foreign media, even foreign government owned, because the real truth is always somewhere between what russians say and what the western media says. I really don't want to read articles like this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2022/may/17/evacuation-of-azovstal-plant-in-mariupol-in-pictures https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2022/may/17/evacua...
    - w7 4y ago
      What is your definition of "free country"? It seems to have been reduced to "country that allows enemies a free platform".
    - xdennis 4y ago
      > You let it be published and broadcast, like a normal free country would. You're being irrational. Free countries don't broadcast the enemy's information during a war.
      - vogre 4y ago
        Are the free countries in war with Russia? Is US in war with Russia? Is EU in war in Russia? If so, should we already send nukes?
        solar-ice 4y ago
        > Are the free countries in war with Russia? > Is US in war with Russia? Is EU in war in Russia? Yes. > If so, should we already send nukes? No.
        wiseowise 4y ago
        The word you’re looking for is “conventional war”. We’re in information war at the current stage.
        trasz 4y ago
        Of course we are at war - Russian nazis invaded, and so we are defending. But you can’t send nukes, because 1. Nukes are bit more complicated than vodka or coal, and given that nowadays Russia can’t even make a car, nukes need regular servicing, and the rest of its armed forces are a joke, it’s highly unlikely their nukes are any better. 2. Sending nukes would turn Russia into wasteland; rest of the world would do better because of its natural advantage.
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    [dead]
- trasz 4y ago
  It’s not “anything”: it’s not like Fox News is banned, or antivaxers. We are talking about an actual shooting war between a genocidal regime and the western civilization, and the ongoing process of Russia turning from “Nigeria with nukes”[1] into North Korea. It’s a once-per-century event. 1. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/russia-nigeria-with-nukes_b_1181592 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/russia-nigeria-with-nukes_b_1..., and of course Nigeria got much better future prospects
- wiseowise 4y ago
  > anything you don’t like Riiight. Because that’s why RT was banned.
pessimizer 4y ago
> RT isn’t banned because we don’t like what it says - it’s banned because it’s a part of information war. You're going to have to explain the difference between these two things.
- trhway 4y ago
  It is an information arm of the Russian government. Restricting direct actions of other government on your territory is a well established international practice. Europe doesn't ban [dis]information from Russia (until of course it violates specific laws of a given country against say inciting violence, propaganda of genocide, etc.)
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    Banning media is a thing repressive dicatators do.
    - trhway 4y ago
      RT is a propaganda department of Russian government. Most countries do regulate behavior of the agents of foreign governments on their territory. It is up to a specific government whether they allow another government to come in and for example spread propaganda or mine coal or build railways. Usually there is some reciprocity expected. Russia blocked not only West government propaganda agencies, it is also blocked independent media. So, the West governments are more than expected to block Russian government propaganda operations, especially given that non government information flow from Russia isn't blocked (that would be the censorship similar to that Russia has been doing, and West hasn't done it yet).
      - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        > RT is a propaganda department of Russian government So is BBC. And they lied about iraq having weapons of mass destruction. We didn't ban them. Yes, russia is led by an ex-kgb dictator... do we really want to be the same as him, and do the same things? Are we really no better at censorship and propaganda than him?
turdit 4y ago
the information i got from rt was that putin says he’s invading bc the us is putting missiles in ukraine, which take a certain amount of minutes to hit moscow, which putin claimed was unacceptable to russian national security. from the west the only info you get is that he’s crazy and there was no reason at all for the invasion. so without even getting into details of is it actually true or not, it was nice to at least hear putin’s rationale, because the west’s explanation that he’s doing this for no reason except that he’s crazy is really insulting to the intelligence of everyone who is not a complete moron. but unfortunately that is 99% of people.
- stefan_ 4y ago
  See, that's the problem when "news" like RT hits on people that have no critical thinking ability. No one needs to put missiles physically closer for half a century now; they just launch from nuclear subs. Even Israel can do this. (And this isn't even the stated reason! You can just watch Putins faux-historical speech!)
  - int_19h 4y ago
    It is one of the stated reasons, actually. There have been many, not necessarily coherent, even coming just from Putin himself.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- ptr 4y ago
  “the us is putting missiles in ukraine” — first time I’m hearing that explanation. Didn’t he invade because Ukraine is “full of nazis”? Or was it due to the “nukes Ukraine was planning to get”? Or to “return Ukraine to Russia”? https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putin-admits-ukraine-invasion-is-an-imperial-war-to-return-russian-land/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putin-adm...

by trasz 4y ago

vogre 4y ago

>it’s banned because it’s a part of information war Yup, just call anything you don't like "russian disinformation", and you are free to ban it, easy.

ptr 4y ago
So, what are we supposed to do with actual Russian disinformation? Or are you saying it doesn’t exist?
- miracle2k 4y ago
  You let it be published and broadcast, like a normal free country would.
  - ptr 4y ago
    I’m sorry but people in general aren’t critical thinkers — broadcasting false and misleading communication should be avoided since it’s extremely dangerous. See the storming of the Capitol Building. It’s especially dangerous when that communication is meant to undermine your country and what your country stands for.
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
      - ptr 4y ago
        Relevance? Why do you feel a need to pull out such arguments when we have a complete war criminal over in the kremlin?
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        It's relevant, because we didn't ban western media (well, our own) back then, for spreading false propaganda (ending in many many deaths), and we're banning RT now, because it's "them" and not "us". If we hate false news/propaganda/... then ban cnn (and many other media), but we clearly want (and allow) "that kind" of propaganda, just not the russian one.
        josephcsible 4y ago
        There's a big difference between intentionally lying and saying things that you honestly believed but turned out to be false.
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        I mean honestly.... I know it's not bbc, but still: https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2022/may/17/evacuation-of-azovstal-plant-in-mariupol-in-pictures https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2022/may/17/evacua... Look at the headline image, the title ("evacuated"), and the "feels" that they're trying to produce. And the reality? They surrendered and were taken as prisoners of war to siberia. If someone has surrendered, i want our media to report "surrendered" and if they were taken as prisoners, I want to see "prisoners" mentioned somewhere... I have no idea what they were trying to achieve with an article like this, but it sure as hell wasn't truthful reporting.
        CamperBob2 4y ago
        Whataboutism is a longstanding Russian doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
    - throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
      so then why do we have this conversation at all? Russia has done nothing wrong, it's just protecting its own dumb proles from false and misleading information meant to undermine their country and what it stands for. I delight in the irony
      - ptr 4y ago
        Maybe that’s what it all comes down to if you can’t reference “truth”. People can pick the side that appears to be the lesser evil.
  - simion314 4y ago
    In my free country media has to obey rules. There are rules for porn, ads, defamation, bad language. Not sure where youa re from that media can has no rules and they can publish anything without any consequences.
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
      But that media is not in your free country, it's hosted outside. You're banning people connecting to servers in other countries, hosted under their laws.
      - simion314 4y ago
        That is irrelevant, Google, PornHub respect the local laws if they want to do business here. I don't think my country constitution protects the free speech of Russian media, they can spawn a local media and then follow the local laws if they want constitutional protection, but just to emphasize in my country TV channels were closed because they ignored the laws too many times and fail to pay their fines. Also no need to pretend you don't know what Russian version of the "facts" are, you can find what their claim in media and social networks. But in Russia world each fact might be in a superposition of 3 realities, the initial Russian fake reports, then when caught the second altered fake report , and the third convoluted fake version where the army of trolls found all their previous holes and patch them with more idiotic falsehoods. 2
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        > That is irrelevant, Google, PornHub respect the local laws if they want to do business here But they don't do business "here", they do their business "there". We're "here" and connecting to their service "there". EU doesn't want us to connect to their business "there". > Also no need to pretend you don't know what Russian version of the "facts" are, you can find what their claim in media and social networks. But in Russia world each fact might be in a superposition of 3 realities, the initial Russian fake reports, then when caught the second altered fake report , and the third convoluted fake version where the army of trolls found all their previous holes and patch them with more idiotic falsehoods. I was born in yugoslavia, I know how the government-lead media is. And that's another reason to not-censor foreign media, even foreign government owned, because the real truth is always somewhere between what russians say and what the western media says. I really don't want to read articles like this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2022/may/17/evacuation-of-azovstal-plant-in-mariupol-in-pictures https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2022/may/17/evacua...
  - w7 4y ago
    What is your definition of "free country"? It seems to have been reduced to "country that allows enemies a free platform".
  - xdennis 4y ago
    > You let it be published and broadcast, like a normal free country would. You're being irrational. Free countries don't broadcast the enemy's information during a war.
    - vogre 4y ago
      Are the free countries in war with Russia? Is US in war with Russia? Is EU in war in Russia? If so, should we already send nukes?
      - solar-ice 4y ago
        > Are the free countries in war with Russia? > Is US in war with Russia? Is EU in war in Russia? Yes. > If so, should we already send nukes? No.
      - wiseowise 4y ago
        The word you’re looking for is “conventional war”. We’re in information war at the current stage.
      - trasz 4y ago
        Of course we are at war - Russian nazis invaded, and so we are defending. But you can’t send nukes, because 1. Nukes are bit more complicated than vodka or coal, and given that nowadays Russia can’t even make a car, nukes need regular servicing, and the rest of its armed forces are a joke, it’s highly unlikely their nukes are any better. 2. Sending nukes would turn Russia into wasteland; rest of the world would do better because of its natural advantage.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  [dead]
trasz 4y ago
It’s not “anything”: it’s not like Fox News is banned, or antivaxers. We are talking about an actual shooting war between a genocidal regime and the western civilization, and the ongoing process of Russia turning from “Nigeria with nukes”[1] into North Korea. It’s a once-per-century event. 1. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/russia-nigeria-with-nukes_b_1181592 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/russia-nigeria-with-nukes_b_1..., and of course Nigeria got much better future prospects
wiseowise 4y ago
> anything you don’t like Riiight. Because that’s why RT was banned.

pessimizer 4y ago

> RT isn’t banned because we don’t like what it says - it’s banned because it’s a part of information war. You're going to have to explain the difference between these two things.

trhway 4y ago
It is an information arm of the Russian government. Restricting direct actions of other government on your territory is a well established international practice. Europe doesn't ban [dis]information from Russia (until of course it violates specific laws of a given country against say inciting violence, propaganda of genocide, etc.)
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  Banning media is a thing repressive dicatators do.
  - trhway 4y ago
    RT is a propaganda department of Russian government. Most countries do regulate behavior of the agents of foreign governments on their territory. It is up to a specific government whether they allow another government to come in and for example spread propaganda or mine coal or build railways. Usually there is some reciprocity expected. Russia blocked not only West government propaganda agencies, it is also blocked independent media. So, the West governments are more than expected to block Russian government propaganda operations, especially given that non government information flow from Russia isn't blocked (that would be the censorship similar to that Russia has been doing, and West hasn't done it yet).
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
      > RT is a propaganda department of Russian government So is BBC. And they lied about iraq having weapons of mass destruction. We didn't ban them. Yes, russia is led by an ex-kgb dictator... do we really want to be the same as him, and do the same things? Are we really no better at censorship and propaganda than him?

turdit 4y ago

the information i got from rt was that putin says he’s invading bc the us is putting missiles in ukraine, which take a certain amount of minutes to hit moscow, which putin claimed was unacceptable to russian national security. from the west the only info you get is that he’s crazy and there was no reason at all for the invasion. so without even getting into details of is it actually true or not, it was nice to at least hear putin’s rationale, because the west’s explanation that he’s doing this for no reason except that he’s crazy is really insulting to the intelligence of everyone who is not a complete moron. but unfortunately that is 99% of people.

stefan_ 4y ago
See, that's the problem when "news" like RT hits on people that have no critical thinking ability. No one needs to put missiles physically closer for half a century now; they just launch from nuclear subs. Even Israel can do this. (And this isn't even the stated reason! You can just watch Putins faux-historical speech!)
- int_19h 4y ago
  It is one of the stated reasons, actually. There have been many, not necessarily coherent, even coming just from Putin himself.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ptr 4y ago
“the us is putting missiles in ukraine” — first time I’m hearing that explanation. Didn’t he invade because Ukraine is “full of nazis”? Or was it due to the “nukes Ukraine was planning to get”? Or to “return Ukraine to Russia”? https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putin-admits-ukraine-invasion-is-an-imperial-war-to-return-russian-land/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putin-adm...