10 ms·

This is a misunderstanding, I believe. What people need to understand is that 'words have consequences'. The 'truth' isn't that important in communications bec

This is a misunderstanding, I believe. What people need to understand is that 'words have consequences'. The 'truth' isn't that important in communications because people can't discern it. People don't know, and often do not care what the truth is. Putin, Xi etc. can easily convince millions of Europeans of their view of the world, which will mostly be based on lies. It's a key pillar of their respective foreign policies. That disinformation has material effects in civil culture. So put another way: we don't want to 'completely ban' content from Russia, but rather, not make it part of the populist lexicon. It's a bit like removing a TV station from broadcasting as one of the 'major channels'. If Europeans conscientiously choose want to get RT, they can. But the West shouldn't allow Russia or China to broadcast directly into people's homes willy nilly. My god man. Information is by far the most powerful weapon. If either Putin or Xi lost their power to censor, their respective governments would collapse, frankly I suggest both of them would be literally dead. Very quickly, within a few months. The internet is giving us the biggest lesson in 'Critical Theory' imaginable (i.e. competing narratives) and of course, we have our own narratives (and internally huge competition over them), but still, some truths are a bit better than others.

vogre 4y ago
> West shouldn't allow Russia or China to broadcast directly into people's homes willy nilly. My god man. What will happen if West would allow it? Will it collapse? If not, why censor it? If it will, what's the difference between West and Putin? Both will collapse without censorship.
- jollybean 4y ago
  "What is the difference between the Allied 'liberation' of France and Hitler's 'liberation' of France? They both deserve an equal voice!" If you're wading int moral relativism, then what is the point, really? The West mostly acts in good faith (not always), and, bad information mostly is marginalized though definitely available. For example, we suppress some kinds of bad information about health, and definitely suppress things like 'how to make nuclear weapons' etc. though generally, it's available if you really try. We don't completely shut down pirate bay. RT.com is a propaganda outlet, designed to spread falsehoods and to undermine civic integrity. If RT.com was 'in every home', a large swath of Europeans would come to believe things that are not true, and likely undermine important efforts, specifically around security. Stalin controlled 17% of the Bundestag during the Wiemar Republic through direct control over the Germany Communist party. He used information, thugs, violence, populism to try to overthrow the Social Democrats (center left) many times, in an attempt to spread his tyranny. He even worked with the far right (aka nascent Hitler) during that time, as they were considered fools. The far right used the legitimacy of Soviet intervention as a means for violent populism. They lied themselves about various things in order to gain power. Mass destruction ensued. The Russians ironically initiated the spread of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' a pretty good example of 'misinformation' which has seriously dire consequences. 30% of Americans believe that 'Joe Biden Stole the Election' which combined with events on Jan 6 which was a clear and direct attempt to dismiss valid votes in lieu of political 'votes' to overthrow the government, has very real consequences. None of that could have happened of only, say, 1% of Americans believed the election stolen. And that's in a media system where most mainstream outlets did not directly promulgate the lie (Fox News didn't sufficiently question the lies about election integrity, but they didn't usually directly support the lie either). The issue matters, greatly. I have access to RT in North American and I don't think it's a big deal, but collectively it is, much more so in Europe where there are Russian sympathizers. For example, RT was pulled form regular broadcast, which is rational. Someone noted above that 'Vodafone' blocked them from RT.com, which I think is fine so long as there is some way to conscientiously get around that arbitrary blocking. Finally, you'll note that Russians do have access to tons of information from outside the censors, but they don't access it, or even care to, which denotes how kind of 'lazy' most of us plebes are - we tend to watch what is in front of us, and believe what we want to believe. Go ahead and watch Russia 1, i.e. Russia's main TV broadcast for a bit, translated into English. It's utterly shocking, now contemplate that 50% of the country believes most of what is beings said because of how they are being fed information. This idea that 'the truth' rises to the point is worse than naive, it's extremely dangerous because it's absolutely false. The most engaging ideas that appeal to our impulses are those that 'rise to the top' to become 'truth'. It's a serious issue. Though again, Europeans should be able to access RT by jumping a few small hoops.
  - cabirum 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - marvin 4y ago
      You can bet your ass that I'm afraid that an expanding, violent imperialist dictatorship will continue its historically proven tradition of undermining the political stability of my country and thereby make us much poorer and less free. It just so happens that I'm not stupid, and am sufficiently worried about this real and imminent risk that I will support quite strong measures to defend against it. One of which is making blatant lies and propaganda from the enemy somewhat harder to access for the population of my country, who collectively have the power to surrender to this attack.
      - thriftwy 4y ago
        That's OK, but you've just gave up on free speech and settled with "information is weapon which must be contained" like in good ol' pre-modern age.
        marvin 4y ago
        I did not abolish the freedom of speech. This sorts under «tolerate everything except intolerance». Russia will not extend the courtesy of freedom of speech if their propaganda operations succeed, so we must defend it before we get to that point. Before I’m accused of being totalitarian, I’ll just state the obvious that this is a subtle and complex subject.
        thriftwy 4y ago
        The problem here is that it takes just one case of intolerance to introduce cascading limitations, and after a short while most everyone is pointing guns to everyone else. Neither Russia nor China are not going to open up their media unless there is reciprocity. But there is no longer any mechanism to source it.
  - 4y ago
- wiseowise 4y ago
  Look at Serbia to see the result.
  - vogre 4y ago
    West will be bombed by NATO? Or what result?
    - wiseowise 4y ago
      Brainwashed population blaming Ukraine, US and EU for war against Ukraine. https://intellinews.com/serbians-blame-us-and-nato-for-ukraine-war-237960/ https://intellinews.com/serbians-blame-us-and-nato-for-ukrai...
      - vogre 4y ago
        Maybe they just remember their country being bombed by EU and NATO and can see the same patterns in the current situation.
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        Yep, and the blatant misiformation and propaganda plus war crimes from nato eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing > The Grdelica train bombing occurred on 12 April 1999, when two missiles fired by US aircraft F-15E Strike Eagle hit a passenger train while it was passing across a railway bridge over the Južna Morava river in the Grdelica gorge, some 300 kilometres (190 mi) south of Belgrade, Serbia. At least 20 civilian passengers were killed or declared missing. Estimates of the total death toll run as high as 60.[1] It is considered the deadliest rail disaster in Serbian history.[3][4] So, nato bombed a civillian train, claiming it was an accident, because the train was "so fast",... which anyone knowin trains in serbia knows it's a lie. So, nato sped up the video: > Later investigation by Frankfurter Rundschau asserted that the video was sped up 4.7 times.[8] So again... we have an area of a country, where "other people" live and want their own country, main country won't let them, there are some shootings, shellings etc. for years, and then an "outside" superpower intervenes, basically destroys the main country to achieve independence for that area. Kosovo, ukraine.. it's all the same, just different actors.
Volker_W 4y ago
> If Europeans conscientiously choose want to get RT, they can. If I want to visit rt.com , Vodafone blocks it.
- jollybean 4y ago
  I don't think it should be blocked, as opposed to removed from broadcast, however, there should be a reasonable way around it. Right now on RT.com they are spreading some fairy bad propaganda, and this illustrates the problem. A few days ago a Russian soldier castrated then killed a Ukrainians soldier, it made waves around the world, the next day the prison facility where Ukranian soldiers were held was 'blown up'. The Russians blamed it on HIMARS strikes, but as can be seen from satellite imagery it can't really be the case, it's also really cynical to suggest that somehow Ukraine would just go ahead and kill it's own citizens. It's believed Russia did that to cover up their prison/torture situation but that's hard to know for sure. The ultra Machiavellian approach of the Russians is to literally blame their atrocities on others, i.e. akin to Hitler saying: we didn't kill the Jews, we left them just fine, the Americans killed them when they overran the positions! Russians will create diversionary media events to distract/suppress from the situation knowing the fact about 'the internet' is that it doesn't discern the truth. There were small bomblets/mines in Donestk city yesterday, which would definitely injure someone if they stepped on it (likely requiring foot/leg amputation) but probably not enough to disable a tracked vehicle. Russia is claiming those were somehow place by Ukraine, of course, Ukraine doesn't seem to even have the capability to do that, let alone the rationality - why would Ukraine arbitrarily drop such things way behind enemy lines? It makes no sense. They are almost assuredly placed there by Russians to create a false controversy (can't be sure on this though). RT.com is as I write this being used to promote the false narrative and to say 'oh, Ukraine is committing war crimes!' Do you see how easy that is? RT exists for this reasons: to place ugly lies, to give them the veneer of credibility. A couple months ago, Russia launched a Tochka missile on a train station where civilians were gathered for evacuation. Dozens of civilians were injured and killed. Russia blamed it on Ukraine, and used RT to promulgate the 'fact' that they didn't have Tochka missiles in their inventory, thereby 'proving' that it could not have been them. But more recently, verifiable evidence has come to light (from Russian sources!) showing Russia launching Tochka missiles, which we know they have. Their response? Who cares. The lie already happened, their 'propanda' already had it's effect and even to this day, they will avoid the question of 'Two months ago you said you had no Tochka missiles, now you are launching Tochka missiles?'. So imagine trying to have a conversation with a total psychopath who lies to your face, and when evidence comes to light showing they lied, they still won't admit their lies. You know they are lying - they know you know they are lying - and of course you know, they know, that you know they are lying. But it doesn't matter. The misinformation is out there. It's a similar story for the downing of flight MH17. The evidence points to Russia having done it, likely by a wayward Buk operator. But RT is used to propagate disinformation and lies about the event, so as to cloud the reality of the situation. Millions of people around the world, including in the West will 'fall for it' - you can even see it on this thread. They become 'useful idiots' for the propagation of the lie. Even US idiot Congressman and notable media figures will repeat the 'talking points' promoted by RT. This happens not so much because they 'support Russia' per sey, rather, they use this information to attack their local political opponents in the US, or wherever. Russian allied governments in China, Africa, M/E etc. happily pick up on this 'news' and run segments on it. In this manner, Russia can literally blow people out of the sky, and very simply use their mass media tools to 'convince' 1/2 of the world that the Ukranians did it themselves. Hitler telling the world that 'The Americans Killed The Jews, Not Us' - that is the purpose of RT, that's why it exists.
thriftwy 4y ago
> If either Putin or Xi lost their power to censor, their respective governments would collapse Why? I can see how a coordinated infowar attack could at some point topple either one (not just "freedom of speech" stuff but a barrage of weaponized propaganga), but I'm not sure why you take this happening as granted. What are the truths that Russians (or even Chinese) have no way of knowing right now and that would topple China/Russia if they did knew those?
- jollybean 4y ago
  Xi and Putin would be toppled instantly without censorship because the reality of their oppression, out in the commons, without constant, total suppression of other ideas would expose them for what they are. Why do you think it's illegal to even refer to the War in Ukraine as a 'War'? They've threatened 15 years in jail with anyone who even hints at something that is 'not true' - in their purview - meaning - if you publicly say something against the ridiculous propaganda - you dissapear. Watch interviews of regular Russians on the street as the 'avoid answers' or 'struggle to find ways to say something, without actually saying it' because they obviously live in a system of fear, where just a few wrong words ends their lives. Without the power to make sure that Russians do not talk about the war, about Putin's corruption, and how to 'get rid of him', Putin (and Xi) would be gone very quickly. The #1 thing in our modern constitutions is 'freedom of assembly' - basically so that people can convene and have ideas. 'Rulers' don't like that because it's how they are overthrown. On the other side - RT is a propaganda outlet that can hugely affect popular opinion and discourse, especially in a realm where people generally do have free access to information. Most of Putin's lies are laughable, but most people aren't in a direct position to dispute them either, and so its' pretty easy for him to convince, say 10% of the population of the legitimacy of whatever genocide he wants to do. Which is why we absolutely do not want RT on broadcast to every American every night. Of course, freedom of information is important as well, so we do want to enable people to have access, and as such, only a very small subset of the population will bother with it. Those that are 'inclined towards information' which is probably a good thing.
  - thriftwy 4y ago
    People absolutely do talk about the war in Russia. Strelkov's last self-interview video got half million views. Yuri Podolyaka, who makes daily videos about current state of the front, talks about the war. Popular Russian military Tg channels get half million views on each their post. Youtube is not blocked and (AFAIK) no longer does any censorship on behalf of Russian Federation (they did block Podolyaka's channels persistently, though, so much for freedom of speech) If your confidence rests on assumption that Russians are too scared to discuss the war, that's myopic.
tryauuum 4y ago
I get what you feel but still... Censoring the internet is dangerous, Europe will certainly not give up this power even after the war ends
- xdennis 4y ago
  > Europe will certainly not give up this power even after the war ends That's competently true, but you have to weigh the options. Giving Russia any access is far more dangerous.
  - sneak 4y ago
    No, it is not. The solution to publishing (speech) you don't like is more speech, not censorship.
    - jollybean 4y ago
      If speech is noise, how does noise help anything? Hitler was a popular charismatic figure in Europe before the war. Would you have made sure that his big Prime Time speeches were lined up with broadcasting so that everyone in Europe had the opportunity to hear what this wonderful man has to say in 1936? Because he bought network time on the Radio? And bought placements in all of the cinema theatres? Or would you let the press do a little summary and put it in a few newspapers and maybe that's that? What about the extra few hundred thousand people who are going to die from a disease, because some wayward doctor is running around telling people 'the government created the vaccine to control people' and 10% of the population believes it. What 'more speech' is going to convince those people of the truth, when 'more speech' from any rational, reliable medical source only makes the idiots more suspicious? Do we just let them die? 'Freedom of Expression' is a very important right, but now and again, there are issues we have to contend with. Information is power, the press knows that very well, which is why even though they guise their narratives in 'pretty much mostly facts' - they can still drive bias and manipulation through. We have to contend with the reality that 'the truth' - which is probably what we are all seeking, is somehow not well communicated in the commons, terribly communicated by politicians, somewhat well communicated by our the government (depending on the area), and reasonably well communicated by the mainstream press, but with large swaths of bias. And yes, generally defer to 'Freedom of Expression' as a hugely important pillar of freedom.
pphysch 4y ago
> Putin, Xi etc. can easily convince millions of Europeans of their view of the world, which will mostly be based on lies. It's a key pillar of their respective foreign policies. Is there any powerful country you can name that does not do this...?
- w7 4y ago
  Does it matter? (Hint: no) Their specific lies are leveraged to harm us (the west) therefore something should be done about them. Gone should be the days of giving autocracies special privileges in the media while they maintain a tight grip on their own.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    One day you might like social scoring your citizens as well.
    - pphysch 4y ago
      Who doesn't love their FICO® Score and all the critical economic opportunities that it gates... I mean provides?
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    Of course it does, because the alternative is giving privilege to other countries for the benefit of power politics. It won't end well either. Relying on censorship for such things really isn't a great idea.
  - pphysch 4y ago
    What special privileges do "autocracies" have? The US government has an official propaganda ministry: USAGM. Large "independent" media like NYT have admitted that they work closely with the DoD and other agencies to screen content before publishing. Also worth noting that the former propaganda chief at USAGM is the current head of NPR. And yet none of the above get "USA state media-affiliated" warnings on social media like Twitter, which digs the hole even deeper. The de facto state media apparatus of the USA is unbelievably huge and underacknowledged. The DoD alone employs over 50,000 people working in "media" roles.
FpUser 4y ago
Sounds like an ostrich talk to me. >"Putin, Xi etc. can easily convince millions of Europeans of their view of the world, which will mostly be based on lies." If your own government / media can not convince them otherwise it is quite pathetic then. Normal person should be able to see through Putin's bullshit, particularly the one that is "based on lies". If however you are educating mostly vegetables that can't think on their own and do some fact checking you definitely deserve it.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  Honestly, with the current state of western governments and media and the mistrust in them both, censoring RT makes people believe RT even more, because if your untrustworthy government doesn't want you to read stuff there, "it must be true".
dempart 4y ago
YarickR2 4y ago
So, EU/US lies are better ? And EU and US are lying through their teeth on a lot of Russia-related topics. Pick your poison, man, just don't complain
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
trasz 4y ago
And here we go, yet another one equating Russia and China.
xdennis 4y ago
> we don't want to 'completely ban' content from Russia I do. There's no reason to have any connection to those people since the invasion until the heat death of the universe.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  Why? I mean... do we completely ban any country that invades any other country? Why just russia? Why their media? Why not media that said iraqi soldiers killed babies, and iraq has weapons of mass destruction plus all the countries that invaded iraq? Or afghanistan? Syria? Libya? What about countries that organize coups and fuck up countries like iran, making us look at "then and now" photos to see how progressive iran was? How about countries that bomb weddings in countries they're not even at war with?

vogre 4y ago

> West shouldn't allow Russia or China to broadcast directly into people's homes willy nilly. My god man. What will happen if West would allow it? Will it collapse? If not, why censor it? If it will, what's the difference between West and Putin? Both will collapse without censorship.

jollybean 4y ago
"What is the difference between the Allied 'liberation' of France and Hitler's 'liberation' of France? They both deserve an equal voice!" If you're wading int moral relativism, then what is the point, really? The West mostly acts in good faith (not always), and, bad information mostly is marginalized though definitely available. For example, we suppress some kinds of bad information about health, and definitely suppress things like 'how to make nuclear weapons' etc. though generally, it's available if you really try. We don't completely shut down pirate bay. RT.com is a propaganda outlet, designed to spread falsehoods and to undermine civic integrity. If RT.com was 'in every home', a large swath of Europeans would come to believe things that are not true, and likely undermine important efforts, specifically around security. Stalin controlled 17% of the Bundestag during the Wiemar Republic through direct control over the Germany Communist party. He used information, thugs, violence, populism to try to overthrow the Social Democrats (center left) many times, in an attempt to spread his tyranny. He even worked with the far right (aka nascent Hitler) during that time, as they were considered fools. The far right used the legitimacy of Soviet intervention as a means for violent populism. They lied themselves about various things in order to gain power. Mass destruction ensued. The Russians ironically initiated the spread of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' a pretty good example of 'misinformation' which has seriously dire consequences. 30% of Americans believe that 'Joe Biden Stole the Election' which combined with events on Jan 6 which was a clear and direct attempt to dismiss valid votes in lieu of political 'votes' to overthrow the government, has very real consequences. None of that could have happened of only, say, 1% of Americans believed the election stolen. And that's in a media system where most mainstream outlets did not directly promulgate the lie (Fox News didn't sufficiently question the lies about election integrity, but they didn't usually directly support the lie either). The issue matters, greatly. I have access to RT in North American and I don't think it's a big deal, but collectively it is, much more so in Europe where there are Russian sympathizers. For example, RT was pulled form regular broadcast, which is rational. Someone noted above that 'Vodafone' blocked them from RT.com, which I think is fine so long as there is some way to conscientiously get around that arbitrary blocking. Finally, you'll note that Russians do have access to tons of information from outside the censors, but they don't access it, or even care to, which denotes how kind of 'lazy' most of us plebes are - we tend to watch what is in front of us, and believe what we want to believe. Go ahead and watch Russia 1, i.e. Russia's main TV broadcast for a bit, translated into English. It's utterly shocking, now contemplate that 50% of the country believes most of what is beings said because of how they are being fed information. This idea that 'the truth' rises to the point is worse than naive, it's extremely dangerous because it's absolutely false. The most engaging ideas that appeal to our impulses are those that 'rise to the top' to become 'truth'. It's a serious issue. Though again, Europeans should be able to access RT by jumping a few small hoops.
- cabirum 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - marvin 4y ago
    You can bet your ass that I'm afraid that an expanding, violent imperialist dictatorship will continue its historically proven tradition of undermining the political stability of my country and thereby make us much poorer and less free. It just so happens that I'm not stupid, and am sufficiently worried about this real and imminent risk that I will support quite strong measures to defend against it. One of which is making blatant lies and propaganda from the enemy somewhat harder to access for the population of my country, who collectively have the power to surrender to this attack.
    - thriftwy 4y ago
      That's OK, but you've just gave up on free speech and settled with "information is weapon which must be contained" like in good ol' pre-modern age.
      - marvin 4y ago
        I did not abolish the freedom of speech. This sorts under «tolerate everything except intolerance». Russia will not extend the courtesy of freedom of speech if their propaganda operations succeed, so we must defend it before we get to that point. Before I’m accused of being totalitarian, I’ll just state the obvious that this is a subtle and complex subject.
        thriftwy 4y ago
        The problem here is that it takes just one case of intolerance to introduce cascading limitations, and after a short while most everyone is pointing guns to everyone else. Neither Russia nor China are not going to open up their media unless there is reciprocity. But there is no longer any mechanism to source it.
- 4y ago
wiseowise 4y ago
Look at Serbia to see the result.
- vogre 4y ago
  West will be bombed by NATO? Or what result?
  - wiseowise 4y ago
    Brainwashed population blaming Ukraine, US and EU for war against Ukraine. https://intellinews.com/serbians-blame-us-and-nato-for-ukraine-war-237960/ https://intellinews.com/serbians-blame-us-and-nato-for-ukrai...
    - vogre 4y ago
      Maybe they just remember their country being bombed by EU and NATO and can see the same patterns in the current situation.
      - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        Yep, and the blatant misiformation and propaganda plus war crimes from nato eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing > The Grdelica train bombing occurred on 12 April 1999, when two missiles fired by US aircraft F-15E Strike Eagle hit a passenger train while it was passing across a railway bridge over the Južna Morava river in the Grdelica gorge, some 300 kilometres (190 mi) south of Belgrade, Serbia. At least 20 civilian passengers were killed or declared missing. Estimates of the total death toll run as high as 60.[1] It is considered the deadliest rail disaster in Serbian history.[3][4] So, nato bombed a civillian train, claiming it was an accident, because the train was "so fast",... which anyone knowin trains in serbia knows it's a lie. So, nato sped up the video: > Later investigation by Frankfurter Rundschau asserted that the video was sped up 4.7 times.[8] So again... we have an area of a country, where "other people" live and want their own country, main country won't let them, there are some shootings, shellings etc. for years, and then an "outside" superpower intervenes, basically destroys the main country to achieve independence for that area. Kosovo, ukraine.. it's all the same, just different actors.

Volker_W 4y ago

> If Europeans conscientiously choose want to get RT, they can. If I want to visit rt.com , Vodafone blocks it.

jollybean 4y ago
I don't think it should be blocked, as opposed to removed from broadcast, however, there should be a reasonable way around it. Right now on RT.com they are spreading some fairy bad propaganda, and this illustrates the problem. A few days ago a Russian soldier castrated then killed a Ukrainians soldier, it made waves around the world, the next day the prison facility where Ukranian soldiers were held was 'blown up'. The Russians blamed it on HIMARS strikes, but as can be seen from satellite imagery it can't really be the case, it's also really cynical to suggest that somehow Ukraine would just go ahead and kill it's own citizens. It's believed Russia did that to cover up their prison/torture situation but that's hard to know for sure. The ultra Machiavellian approach of the Russians is to literally blame their atrocities on others, i.e. akin to Hitler saying: we didn't kill the Jews, we left them just fine, the Americans killed them when they overran the positions! Russians will create diversionary media events to distract/suppress from the situation knowing the fact about 'the internet' is that it doesn't discern the truth. There were small bomblets/mines in Donestk city yesterday, which would definitely injure someone if they stepped on it (likely requiring foot/leg amputation) but probably not enough to disable a tracked vehicle. Russia is claiming those were somehow place by Ukraine, of course, Ukraine doesn't seem to even have the capability to do that, let alone the rationality - why would Ukraine arbitrarily drop such things way behind enemy lines? It makes no sense. They are almost assuredly placed there by Russians to create a false controversy (can't be sure on this though). RT.com is as I write this being used to promote the false narrative and to say 'oh, Ukraine is committing war crimes!' Do you see how easy that is? RT exists for this reasons: to place ugly lies, to give them the veneer of credibility. A couple months ago, Russia launched a Tochka missile on a train station where civilians were gathered for evacuation. Dozens of civilians were injured and killed. Russia blamed it on Ukraine, and used RT to promulgate the 'fact' that they didn't have Tochka missiles in their inventory, thereby 'proving' that it could not have been them. But more recently, verifiable evidence has come to light (from Russian sources!) showing Russia launching Tochka missiles, which we know they have. Their response? Who cares. The lie already happened, their 'propanda' already had it's effect and even to this day, they will avoid the question of 'Two months ago you said you had no Tochka missiles, now you are launching Tochka missiles?'. So imagine trying to have a conversation with a total psychopath who lies to your face, and when evidence comes to light showing they lied, they still won't admit their lies. You know they are lying - they know you know they are lying - and of course you know, they know, that you know they are lying. But it doesn't matter. The misinformation is out there. It's a similar story for the downing of flight MH17. The evidence points to Russia having done it, likely by a wayward Buk operator. But RT is used to propagate disinformation and lies about the event, so as to cloud the reality of the situation. Millions of people around the world, including in the West will 'fall for it' - you can even see it on this thread. They become 'useful idiots' for the propagation of the lie. Even US idiot Congressman and notable media figures will repeat the 'talking points' promoted by RT. This happens not so much because they 'support Russia' per sey, rather, they use this information to attack their local political opponents in the US, or wherever. Russian allied governments in China, Africa, M/E etc. happily pick up on this 'news' and run segments on it. In this manner, Russia can literally blow people out of the sky, and very simply use their mass media tools to 'convince' 1/2 of the world that the Ukranians did it themselves. Hitler telling the world that 'The Americans Killed The Jews, Not Us' - that is the purpose of RT, that's why it exists.

thriftwy 4y ago

> If either Putin or Xi lost their power to censor, their respective governments would collapse Why? I can see how a coordinated infowar attack could at some point topple either one (not just "freedom of speech" stuff but a barrage of weaponized propaganga), but I'm not sure why you take this happening as granted. What are the truths that Russians (or even Chinese) have no way of knowing right now and that would topple China/Russia if they did knew those?

jollybean 4y ago
Xi and Putin would be toppled instantly without censorship because the reality of their oppression, out in the commons, without constant, total suppression of other ideas would expose them for what they are. Why do you think it's illegal to even refer to the War in Ukraine as a 'War'? They've threatened 15 years in jail with anyone who even hints at something that is 'not true' - in their purview - meaning - if you publicly say something against the ridiculous propaganda - you dissapear. Watch interviews of regular Russians on the street as the 'avoid answers' or 'struggle to find ways to say something, without actually saying it' because they obviously live in a system of fear, where just a few wrong words ends their lives. Without the power to make sure that Russians do not talk about the war, about Putin's corruption, and how to 'get rid of him', Putin (and Xi) would be gone very quickly. The #1 thing in our modern constitutions is 'freedom of assembly' - basically so that people can convene and have ideas. 'Rulers' don't like that because it's how they are overthrown. On the other side - RT is a propaganda outlet that can hugely affect popular opinion and discourse, especially in a realm where people generally do have free access to information. Most of Putin's lies are laughable, but most people aren't in a direct position to dispute them either, and so its' pretty easy for him to convince, say 10% of the population of the legitimacy of whatever genocide he wants to do. Which is why we absolutely do not want RT on broadcast to every American every night. Of course, freedom of information is important as well, so we do want to enable people to have access, and as such, only a very small subset of the population will bother with it. Those that are 'inclined towards information' which is probably a good thing.
- thriftwy 4y ago
  People absolutely do talk about the war in Russia. Strelkov's last self-interview video got half million views. Yuri Podolyaka, who makes daily videos about current state of the front, talks about the war. Popular Russian military Tg channels get half million views on each their post. Youtube is not blocked and (AFAIK) no longer does any censorship on behalf of Russian Federation (they did block Podolyaka's channels persistently, though, so much for freedom of speech) If your confidence rests on assumption that Russians are too scared to discuss the war, that's myopic.

tryauuum 4y ago

I get what you feel but still... Censoring the internet is dangerous, Europe will certainly not give up this power even after the war ends

xdennis 4y ago
> Europe will certainly not give up this power even after the war ends That's competently true, but you have to weigh the options. Giving Russia any access is far more dangerous.
- sneak 4y ago
  No, it is not. The solution to publishing (speech) you don't like is more speech, not censorship.
  - jollybean 4y ago
    If speech is noise, how does noise help anything? Hitler was a popular charismatic figure in Europe before the war. Would you have made sure that his big Prime Time speeches were lined up with broadcasting so that everyone in Europe had the opportunity to hear what this wonderful man has to say in 1936? Because he bought network time on the Radio? And bought placements in all of the cinema theatres? Or would you let the press do a little summary and put it in a few newspapers and maybe that's that? What about the extra few hundred thousand people who are going to die from a disease, because some wayward doctor is running around telling people 'the government created the vaccine to control people' and 10% of the population believes it. What 'more speech' is going to convince those people of the truth, when 'more speech' from any rational, reliable medical source only makes the idiots more suspicious? Do we just let them die? 'Freedom of Expression' is a very important right, but now and again, there are issues we have to contend with. Information is power, the press knows that very well, which is why even though they guise their narratives in 'pretty much mostly facts' - they can still drive bias and manipulation through. We have to contend with the reality that 'the truth' - which is probably what we are all seeking, is somehow not well communicated in the commons, terribly communicated by politicians, somewhat well communicated by our the government (depending on the area), and reasonably well communicated by the mainstream press, but with large swaths of bias. And yes, generally defer to 'Freedom of Expression' as a hugely important pillar of freedom.

pphysch 4y ago

> Putin, Xi etc. can easily convince millions of Europeans of their view of the world, which will mostly be based on lies. It's a key pillar of their respective foreign policies. Is there any powerful country you can name that does not do this...?

w7 4y ago
Does it matter? (Hint: no) Their specific lies are leveraged to harm us (the west) therefore something should be done about them. Gone should be the days of giving autocracies special privileges in the media while they maintain a tight grip on their own.
- FpUser 4y ago
  One day you might like social scoring your citizens as well.
  - pphysch 4y ago
    Who doesn't love their FICO® Score and all the critical economic opportunities that it gates... I mean provides?
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  Of course it does, because the alternative is giving privilege to other countries for the benefit of power politics. It won't end well either. Relying on censorship for such things really isn't a great idea.
- pphysch 4y ago
  What special privileges do "autocracies" have? The US government has an official propaganda ministry: USAGM. Large "independent" media like NYT have admitted that they work closely with the DoD and other agencies to screen content before publishing. Also worth noting that the former propaganda chief at USAGM is the current head of NPR. And yet none of the above get "USA state media-affiliated" warnings on social media like Twitter, which digs the hole even deeper. The de facto state media apparatus of the USA is unbelievably huge and underacknowledged. The DoD alone employs over 50,000 people working in "media" roles.

FpUser 4y ago

Sounds like an ostrich talk to me. >"Putin, Xi etc. can easily convince millions of Europeans of their view of the world, which will mostly be based on lies." If your own government / media can not convince them otherwise it is quite pathetic then. Normal person should be able to see through Putin's bullshit, particularly the one that is "based on lies". If however you are educating mostly vegetables that can't think on their own and do some fact checking you definitely deserve it.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
Honestly, with the current state of western governments and media and the mistrust in them both, censoring RT makes people believe RT even more, because if your untrustworthy government doesn't want you to read stuff there, "it must be true".

dempart 4y ago

YarickR2 4y ago

So, EU/US lies are better ? And EU and US are lying through their teeth on a lot of Russia-related topics. Pick your poison, man, just don't complain

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

trasz 4y ago

And here we go, yet another one equating Russia and China.

xdennis 4y ago

> we don't want to 'completely ban' content from Russia I do. There's no reason to have any connection to those people since the invasion until the heat death of the universe.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
Why? I mean... do we completely ban any country that invades any other country? Why just russia? Why their media? Why not media that said iraqi soldiers killed babies, and iraq has weapons of mass destruction plus all the countries that invaded iraq? Or afghanistan? Syria? Libya? What about countries that organize coups and fuck up countries like iran, making us look at "then and now" photos to see how progressive iran was? How about countries that bomb weddings in countries they're not even at war with?