7 ms·

I’m not sure about “dark day for the media” but it does feel like a dark day for Israel. Once you’ve established that the government can unilaterally ban a voi

I’m not sure about “dark day for the media” but it does feel like a dark day for Israel. Once you’ve established that the government can unilaterally ban a voice for reasons of “national security” you’ve essentially given them a free pass. As Americans living post-9/11 will know, “national security” is a deliberately elastic term that can cover anything required in the moment.

_Microft 3y ago
I think it's neither surprising nor necessarily bad. Just think of how Russia Today was spreading disinformation and propaganda about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Banning them from the EU was certainly in our interest.
- brabel 3y ago
  It's disinformation according to the Government though, which is the same thing happening here with Israel, isn't it? Do you believe Al Jazeera is spreading misinformation? Even if Israel says so? Even if the USA starts saying so as well? I don't know where we can draw a line here.
  - TheGuyWhoCodes 3y ago
    We can draw the line when they report proven false information and never apologize for reporting so. We can draw the line when they say one thing on English Al Jazeera and another on Arabic Al Jazeera. We can draw the line when their reporters were (since then eliminated) active member of Hamas rocket teams.
    - beyondCritics 3y ago
      Can you back up the implied claims with some references?
      - jolj 3y ago
        Not parent, but: 1. False report about IDF rape https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-report-alleging-idf-rapes-in-shifa-hospital-retracted/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-report-alleging-idf... 2. Arabic vs English Al Jazeera, conflicting messages https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2017/10/01/Al-Jazeera-English-vs-Al-Jazeera-Arabic-One-channel-two-messages https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2017/10/01/Al-Jazeer... https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/aljazeera-one-organization-two-messages https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/aljazeer... 3. Al Jazeera reporters doubling as Hamas members https://www.timesofisrael.com/wounded-al-jazeera-reporter-in-gaza-an-alleged-hamas-operative-flown-to-qatar/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/wounded-al-jazeera-reporter-in... https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-journalist-is-also-a-hamas-commander-idf-says/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-journalist-is-also-... https://twitter.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1756728159158812921 https://twitter.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1756728159158812921
        SauciestGNU 3y ago
        Times of Israel is the media of a different belligerent in this conflict, why on earth should I trust them to debunk AJ anymore than I should trust AJ to truthfully report on Israel?
        jolj 3y ago
        The difference is that Times of Israel is privately owned, while Al Jazeera is operated by an authoritarian government. also the information I posted can be found in other places. However, if you think a government that promotes modern slavery is probably a good source for journalism, that's your choice to make.
        SauciestGNU 3y ago
        [flagged]
        jolj 3y ago
    - amadeuspagel 3y ago
      > We can draw the line when they say one thing on English Al Jazeera and another on Arabic Al Jazeera. The vast majority of media companies that own media in different languages are on Al Jazeera's side of the line then, including most companies that have social media channels in different languages.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    It's possible to make a fair judgement about what a government is doing, and in many places people trust their government and accept their actions. But it's notable that the Israeli government refuses to submit itself to an election, especially in the face of widespread popular demands.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  > Banning them from the EU was certainly in our interest. but you had no say in the matter; so if a future ban is not in your interest, what will you do? no, the government should not stifle the market of ideas. that is not in our interest in the long run.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > the government should not stifle the market of ideas America is uniquely individualistic, our First Amendment uniquely strong. I believe in it. But it's not clear it's the only optimum.
- lukan 3y ago
  "Banning them from the EU was certainly in our interest." It is not in my interest, to become more like authorian russia for the sake of fighting them.
  - Hoasi 3y ago
    Exactly. It’s undemocratic. It’s also unwise strategically.
    - forty 3y ago
      I know the whole radical free speech theory where everyone should be able to see all discourses and make their own informed opinion. The thing is, the facts are that propaganda and fake news are super effective. Probably a failure of western democracies to develop critical sense of their citizens, or the lake of preparation to the quick rise of social networks. And now far right are rising in Europe too, of course driven - in part - by Russian propaganda and fake news (and funding too). So I'm not sure what is the good solution now. I'd be happy if there were more money to fund school and lessons for children to understand how those fake news work. But this is long term. Short term I think I'm okay if we don't have RT in France.
      - lukan 3y ago
        "Short term I think I'm okay if we don't have RT in France." You do. On the internet. An increasing amount of people are getting their (fake) news now exclusivly online via "alternative" news sources like RT. Banning one of those sources on television will just mean further entrenching of those people. ("see, they don't want the truth to spread" ...) " I'd be happy if there were more money to fund school and lessons for children to understand how those fake news work." And aside to lots and lots of crap in the curriculum, there would be enough school time avaiable to teach more of criticial information analysis and media skills. But partial banning of one source seems like the more comfortable solution. Except that this might really hurt us in the long run, if the next source that will be banned, won't be enemy propaganda source, but just a legitimate critical newspaper for example. But secret service will say the enemy funded and influenced them, so off they go.
- guappa 3y ago
  If we had to ban every media that has said a half truth, we'd have no media at all. It wasn't in the interest of freedom. Everyone reading it would know it was the russian spin. But now we are not allowed to know what the russians think. After all thinking of them as humans like us is not something we want right?
loceng 3y ago
[flagged]
- jstarfish 3y ago
  [dead]
- dotancohen 3y ago
  Then let me go on record as saying that I fully support my government and my army's efforts to return the remaining hostages even in the face of double-standard world efforts to legitimize the genocidal, racist, homophobic, and misogynistic Hamas regime.
  - C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
    > Then let me go on record as saying that I fully support my government and my army's efforts to return the remaining hostages [...] This is a common talking point that makes no sense when you think about it. Could you please explain how you envision the hostage release to be achieved through bombing and systematic destruction of the area that they are held in? It sounds much more likely to kill them instead. Why not simply negotiate a hostage exchange? Do you expect that if Hamas was about to be completely wiped out, that they would not simply kill all the hostages that were still alive up to that point?
    - bawolff 3y ago
      > Could you please explain how you envision the hostage release to be achieved through bombing and systematic destruction of the area that they are held in? It sounds much more likely to kill them instead. Why not simply negotiate a hostage exchange? That presumes that there is something hamas wants that is viable for israel to give them. Its far from obvious that is the case in this conflict. Its not like "carrot and stick" negotiating tactics are unique to this conflict.
      - afavour 3y ago
        > That presumes that there is something hamas wants that is viable for israel to give them. Its far from obvious that is the case in this conflict. If that’s true (and I agree that it may well be) then surely Israel’s army’s efforts can’t be in aid of hostage release, because it’s an entirely unattainable goal? I think that’s what the OP is getting at. The tactics we see don’t seem like they’d be effective ways to rescue hostages. Nor does it feel all that viable to persuade Hamas to release the hostages. So what are the current tactics in aid of?
brabel 3y ago
The EU has banned many Russian and Belarussian news sources since the invasion of Ukraine. The USA seems to not have followed through (as far as I know - as Russian news sites seem to be available).
- taf2 3y ago
  We definitely did block or at least make them less available, as I recall prior to the invasion RT was commonly on when walking into a hotel room or in Youtube recommendation lists. Post invasion in US I never see it in any hotels or recommended on Youtube... was it censored or maybe just wildly boycotted, not sure... but seems appropriate as a response to me
  - radlad 3y ago
    I think there is a huge difference between the government blocking access to a media outlet versus hotels choosing to no longer display said media outlet on their televisions. AFAIK, there has been no ban. It would probably face some backlash given the First Amendment right to freedom of press. (Though I'm not sure that truly extends to the press of a foreign country?)
  - oivey 3y ago
    This is a government ban. It is not at all comparable to your perception that private businesses are playing less Russia origin media.
  - arp242 3y ago
    RT was outright banned by the EU after they invaded Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Responses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Responses – it's also been dropped/banned by most mainstream platforms. I don't think you can compare Al Jazeera and RT, because one has been a firehose of bullshit that has literally advocates invasion of Ukraine, and the other does not. As far as I know, Al Jazeera is banned purely because they've been critical of current Israeli policy. There are some reasonable criticisms of Al Jazeera and things they could have done better, but that applies to every media outlet on the planet.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
The only justification would be if they are broadcasting government secrets. Clearly they're not doing that, just criticizing the government. The obvious next step is outlawing any speech criticizing the government (or rather 'speech that is a threat to national security'), then you've got the same laws as in Russia.
- deciplex 3y ago
  Israel is also responsible for 3/4 of all journalist deaths in the last year.
  - noduerme 3y ago
    [flagged]
- YZF 3y ago
  There's plenty of Israeli media attacking the government day in and out. Haaretz, Yedioth, etc. They were not closed because they're "criticizing the government". They were closed because they're acting on behalf of a foreign agent and spreading propaganda (I think the actual language "is harmed national security"). Qatar is not a free country, it funds Al-Jazeera, it hosts the Hamas leadership. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/ "Mixed for factual reporting due to failed fact checks that were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias that favors Qatar."
steve76 3y ago
[dead]
darkclouds 3y ago
Lets not forget that the British Govt banned Russia Today from broadcasting in the UK a few years back. Such is their planning and manipulation of events on the global stage! https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/18/will-ofcoms-decision-to-ban-rt-stop-kremlin-message-reaching-uk-audiences https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/18/will-ofcoms-de... Notice a pattern with the British Govt? They get their "independent" depts and businesses to do their dirty work for deniability!
- arp242 3y ago
  Russian government literally assassinated or tried to assassinate several people in British territory. That the Russian government's propaganda arm hadn't been given the boot after these spectacular acts of bad faith demonstrates that the UK government perhaps has slightly more dedication to press freedom than you're suggesting.
  - stefantalpalaru 3y ago
    [dead]
- fidotron 3y ago
  Indeed, up until 2014 the BBC World Service was literally funded by the Foreign Office.
exe34 3y ago
It's quite usual to ban the enemy from inciting dissidence from your own population during a war.
- atlantic 3y ago
  Yes, propaganda is acceptable during a war, and censorship is a part of that. But Europe is not at war with Russia. They are simply giving material support to one of the belligerents. Outside the context of a declared war, censorship should not happen in so-called democratic societies.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    That's quite a blunt viewpoint. Is it possible the situation is more nuanced? To resort to official declarations of war or lack thereof, to hamstring the US response to widespread dissemination of Russian propaganda is plausible on the face of it. But consider: the US is under no obligation to facilitate Russian propagandists. To deny them access is a matter for the State Department, as it's dealing with foreign nationals. It's quite routine to deny rights to non-American citizens. Finally, a declaration of war with Russia could destabilize politics everywhere. Or even, destroy the world. It's disingenuous to ignore that and quibble over the rules, especially since those rules clearly don't apply to foreign governments trying to operate in the US.
  - ThePowerOfFuet 3y ago
    > But Europe is not at war with Russia. Not yet, they're not.
  - neoromantique 3y ago
    Russia is already at war with Europe, sadly Europe doesn’t seem to acknowledge that yet.
  - hnfong 2y ago
    TikTok agrees.
- mmaniac 3y ago
belorn 3y ago
I know that people in general seems to react strongly negative to government censorship, but I can not avoid seeing it through the light of recent trends of post-truth online censorships that blasted the internet during the last decade. Popularity of censorship is something that seems to go in wave, and outside the US there seems to be more acceptance to government censorship as comparative to platform censorship. In smaller countries the distinction becomes a bit blurry if it is the government doing the censorship, or the ISP's doing it voluntarily, or the dominant market platform making the same decision. In my own industry I commonly hear people talk about self regulation in order to keep governments from interfering. This has benefits, but it also makes the action of the industry a dialog between government and private sector. Voluntarily removing undesired content is technically not censorship ordered by the government, but it is also not completely separated from the wishes of the government.
- DEADMINCE 3y ago
  Honestly, I kind of think censorship would be a positive thing when applied to people lacking education. Where to draw the line is the issue, but at the least maybe people who didn't finish highschool or get a GED or equivalent shouldn't be exposed to conspiracy theories that they then act on.
  - _lvbh 3y ago
    What a dystopian idea. I understand the reasoning but that is an extremely slippery slope for the rich to control the poor
    - DEADMINCE 3y ago
      It's more about the educated controlling the dangerously ignorant.
  - mrkeen 3y ago
    Education doesn't make for a good cutoff. > We examined the educational backgrounds of 75 terrorists behind some of the most significant recent terrorist attacks against Westerners. We found that a majority of them are college-educated, often in technical subjects like engineering. > In the four attacks for which the most complete information about the perpetrators' educational levels is available -- the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the 9/11 attacks, and the Bali bombings in 2002 -- 53 percent of the terrorists had either attended college or had received a college degree. [https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/opinion/the-madrassa-myth.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/opinion/the-madrassa-myth...]
DEADMINCE 3y ago
> I’m not sure about “dark day for the media” but it does feel like a dark day for Israel. I would never expect any theocracy to be a bastion of democracy. Israel can't really realize its goals and be free at the same time. Those goals are not compatible.
YZF 3y ago
I agree this is not good for Israel. A democracy is partly measured by its ability to tolerate voices it does not approve of. Israel should be stronger than this. I agree that using national security as an excuse is a slippery slope. This is mostly a symbolic move that will make very little difference. Likely it will push Al Jazeera to be more anti-Israeli but I'm sure they can make up (pun intended) for their lack of physical presence in the region. People that want to consume that content in Israel will have no problem (many already get this via satellite). A by the way is that this can still be challenged in the courts. If Al Jazeera chooses to go to the supreme court I imagine there's a pretty good chance that the decision will get overturned. They might intentionally decide not to do that because that outcome will put Israel in a positive light.
tw04 3y ago
I think there are limits - when it's a state-run agency that's peddling straight propaganda and not making an effort to produce news content, I don't see why you would let them operate within your borders: looking at you RT.
VelesDude 3y ago
The age old question, "Who will watch the watchmen?"
solatic 3y ago
> As Americans living post-9/11 will know, “national security” is a deliberately elastic term that can cover anything required in the moment. One of the genuine cultural differences between the US and Israel is that while Americans prefer greater liberty (even if it means less security), Israelis prefer greater security (even if it means less liberty). Which is to say, both cultures appreciate both values, but they have different priorities. Israel is a country where you will have your bags searched before entering shopping malls or train stations. That Israelis' privacy is violated on a daily basis by other Israelis is popular. There is a sense that the privacy violations are genuinely needed, result in genuine protection, and are not abused by those in power.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- int_19h 3y ago
  I should note that "there is a sense that the privacy violations are genuinely needed, result in genuine protection, and are not abused by those in power" also describes modern Russia, for example.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

_Microft 3y ago

I think it's neither surprising nor necessarily bad. Just think of how Russia Today was spreading disinformation and propaganda about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Banning them from the EU was certainly in our interest.

brabel 3y ago
It's disinformation according to the Government though, which is the same thing happening here with Israel, isn't it? Do you believe Al Jazeera is spreading misinformation? Even if Israel says so? Even if the USA starts saying so as well? I don't know where we can draw a line here.
- TheGuyWhoCodes 3y ago
  We can draw the line when they report proven false information and never apologize for reporting so. We can draw the line when they say one thing on English Al Jazeera and another on Arabic Al Jazeera. We can draw the line when their reporters were (since then eliminated) active member of Hamas rocket teams.
  - beyondCritics 3y ago
    Can you back up the implied claims with some references?
    - jolj 3y ago
      Not parent, but: 1. False report about IDF rape https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-report-alleging-idf-rapes-in-shifa-hospital-retracted/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-report-alleging-idf... 2. Arabic vs English Al Jazeera, conflicting messages https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2017/10/01/Al-Jazeera-English-vs-Al-Jazeera-Arabic-One-channel-two-messages https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2017/10/01/Al-Jazeer... https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/aljazeera-one-organization-two-messages https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/aljazeer... 3. Al Jazeera reporters doubling as Hamas members https://www.timesofisrael.com/wounded-al-jazeera-reporter-in-gaza-an-alleged-hamas-operative-flown-to-qatar/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/wounded-al-jazeera-reporter-in... https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-journalist-is-also-a-hamas-commander-idf-says/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-journalist-is-also-... https://twitter.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1756728159158812921 https://twitter.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1756728159158812921
      - SauciestGNU 3y ago
        Times of Israel is the media of a different belligerent in this conflict, why on earth should I trust them to debunk AJ anymore than I should trust AJ to truthfully report on Israel?
        jolj 3y ago
        The difference is that Times of Israel is privately owned, while Al Jazeera is operated by an authoritarian government. also the information I posted can be found in other places. However, if you think a government that promotes modern slavery is probably a good source for journalism, that's your choice to make.
        SauciestGNU 3y ago
        [flagged]
        jolj 3y ago
  - amadeuspagel 3y ago
    > We can draw the line when they say one thing on English Al Jazeera and another on Arabic Al Jazeera. The vast majority of media companies that own media in different languages are on Al Jazeera's side of the line then, including most companies that have social media channels in different languages.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  It's possible to make a fair judgement about what a government is doing, and in many places people trust their government and accept their actions. But it's notable that the Israeli government refuses to submit itself to an election, especially in the face of widespread popular demands.
andsoitis 3y ago
> Banning them from the EU was certainly in our interest. but you had no say in the matter; so if a future ban is not in your interest, what will you do? no, the government should not stifle the market of ideas. that is not in our interest in the long run.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > the government should not stifle the market of ideas America is uniquely individualistic, our First Amendment uniquely strong. I believe in it. But it's not clear it's the only optimum.
lukan 3y ago
"Banning them from the EU was certainly in our interest." It is not in my interest, to become more like authorian russia for the sake of fighting them.
- Hoasi 3y ago
  Exactly. It’s undemocratic. It’s also unwise strategically.
  - forty 3y ago
    I know the whole radical free speech theory where everyone should be able to see all discourses and make their own informed opinion. The thing is, the facts are that propaganda and fake news are super effective. Probably a failure of western democracies to develop critical sense of their citizens, or the lake of preparation to the quick rise of social networks. And now far right are rising in Europe too, of course driven - in part - by Russian propaganda and fake news (and funding too). So I'm not sure what is the good solution now. I'd be happy if there were more money to fund school and lessons for children to understand how those fake news work. But this is long term. Short term I think I'm okay if we don't have RT in France.
    - lukan 3y ago
      "Short term I think I'm okay if we don't have RT in France." You do. On the internet. An increasing amount of people are getting their (fake) news now exclusivly online via "alternative" news sources like RT. Banning one of those sources on television will just mean further entrenching of those people. ("see, they don't want the truth to spread" ...) " I'd be happy if there were more money to fund school and lessons for children to understand how those fake news work." And aside to lots and lots of crap in the curriculum, there would be enough school time avaiable to teach more of criticial information analysis and media skills. But partial banning of one source seems like the more comfortable solution. Except that this might really hurt us in the long run, if the next source that will be banned, won't be enemy propaganda source, but just a legitimate critical newspaper for example. But secret service will say the enemy funded and influenced them, so off they go.
guappa 3y ago
If we had to ban every media that has said a half truth, we'd have no media at all. It wasn't in the interest of freedom. Everyone reading it would know it was the russian spin. But now we are not allowed to know what the russians think. After all thinking of them as humans like us is not something we want right?

loceng 3y ago

[flagged]

jstarfish 3y ago
[dead]
dotancohen 3y ago
Then let me go on record as saying that I fully support my government and my army's efforts to return the remaining hostages even in the face of double-standard world efforts to legitimize the genocidal, racist, homophobic, and misogynistic Hamas regime.
- C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
  > Then let me go on record as saying that I fully support my government and my army's efforts to return the remaining hostages [...] This is a common talking point that makes no sense when you think about it. Could you please explain how you envision the hostage release to be achieved through bombing and systematic destruction of the area that they are held in? It sounds much more likely to kill them instead. Why not simply negotiate a hostage exchange? Do you expect that if Hamas was about to be completely wiped out, that they would not simply kill all the hostages that were still alive up to that point?
  - bawolff 3y ago
    > Could you please explain how you envision the hostage release to be achieved through bombing and systematic destruction of the area that they are held in? It sounds much more likely to kill them instead. Why not simply negotiate a hostage exchange? That presumes that there is something hamas wants that is viable for israel to give them. Its far from obvious that is the case in this conflict. Its not like "carrot and stick" negotiating tactics are unique to this conflict.
    - afavour 3y ago
      > That presumes that there is something hamas wants that is viable for israel to give them. Its far from obvious that is the case in this conflict. If that’s true (and I agree that it may well be) then surely Israel’s army’s efforts can’t be in aid of hostage release, because it’s an entirely unattainable goal? I think that’s what the OP is getting at. The tactics we see don’t seem like they’d be effective ways to rescue hostages. Nor does it feel all that viable to persuade Hamas to release the hostages. So what are the current tactics in aid of?

brabel 3y ago

The EU has banned many Russian and Belarussian news sources since the invasion of Ukraine. The USA seems to not have followed through (as far as I know - as Russian news sites seem to be available).

taf2 3y ago
We definitely did block or at least make them less available, as I recall prior to the invasion RT was commonly on when walking into a hotel room or in Youtube recommendation lists. Post invasion in US I never see it in any hotels or recommended on Youtube... was it censored or maybe just wildly boycotted, not sure... but seems appropriate as a response to me
- radlad 3y ago
  I think there is a huge difference between the government blocking access to a media outlet versus hotels choosing to no longer display said media outlet on their televisions. AFAIK, there has been no ban. It would probably face some backlash given the First Amendment right to freedom of press. (Though I'm not sure that truly extends to the press of a foreign country?)
- oivey 3y ago
  This is a government ban. It is not at all comparable to your perception that private businesses are playing less Russia origin media.
- arp242 3y ago
  RT was outright banned by the EU after they invaded Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Responses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Responses – it's also been dropped/banned by most mainstream platforms. I don't think you can compare Al Jazeera and RT, because one has been a firehose of bullshit that has literally advocates invasion of Ukraine, and the other does not. As far as I know, Al Jazeera is banned purely because they've been critical of current Israeli policy. There are some reasonable criticisms of Al Jazeera and things they could have done better, but that applies to every media outlet on the planet.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

The only justification would be if they are broadcasting government secrets. Clearly they're not doing that, just criticizing the government. The obvious next step is outlawing any speech criticizing the government (or rather 'speech that is a threat to national security'), then you've got the same laws as in Russia.

deciplex 3y ago
Israel is also responsible for 3/4 of all journalist deaths in the last year.
- noduerme 3y ago
  [flagged]
YZF 3y ago
There's plenty of Israeli media attacking the government day in and out. Haaretz, Yedioth, etc. They were not closed because they're "criticizing the government". They were closed because they're acting on behalf of a foreign agent and spreading propaganda (I think the actual language "is harmed national security"). Qatar is not a free country, it funds Al-Jazeera, it hosts the Hamas leadership. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/ "Mixed for factual reporting due to failed fact checks that were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias that favors Qatar."

steve76 3y ago

[dead]

darkclouds 3y ago

Lets not forget that the British Govt banned Russia Today from broadcasting in the UK a few years back. Such is their planning and manipulation of events on the global stage! https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/18/will-ofcoms-decision-to-ban-rt-stop-kremlin-message-reaching-uk-audiences https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/18/will-ofcoms-de... Notice a pattern with the British Govt? They get their "independent" depts and businesses to do their dirty work for deniability!

arp242 3y ago
Russian government literally assassinated or tried to assassinate several people in British territory. That the Russian government's propaganda arm hadn't been given the boot after these spectacular acts of bad faith demonstrates that the UK government perhaps has slightly more dedication to press freedom than you're suggesting.
- stefantalpalaru 3y ago
  [dead]
fidotron 3y ago
Indeed, up until 2014 the BBC World Service was literally funded by the Foreign Office.

exe34 3y ago

It's quite usual to ban the enemy from inciting dissidence from your own population during a war.

atlantic 3y ago
Yes, propaganda is acceptable during a war, and censorship is a part of that. But Europe is not at war with Russia. They are simply giving material support to one of the belligerents. Outside the context of a declared war, censorship should not happen in so-called democratic societies.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  That's quite a blunt viewpoint. Is it possible the situation is more nuanced? To resort to official declarations of war or lack thereof, to hamstring the US response to widespread dissemination of Russian propaganda is plausible on the face of it. But consider: the US is under no obligation to facilitate Russian propagandists. To deny them access is a matter for the State Department, as it's dealing with foreign nationals. It's quite routine to deny rights to non-American citizens. Finally, a declaration of war with Russia could destabilize politics everywhere. Or even, destroy the world. It's disingenuous to ignore that and quibble over the rules, especially since those rules clearly don't apply to foreign governments trying to operate in the US.
- ThePowerOfFuet 3y ago
  > But Europe is not at war with Russia. Not yet, they're not.
- neoromantique 3y ago
  Russia is already at war with Europe, sadly Europe doesn’t seem to acknowledge that yet.
- hnfong 2y ago
  TikTok agrees.
mmaniac 3y ago

belorn 3y ago

I know that people in general seems to react strongly negative to government censorship, but I can not avoid seeing it through the light of recent trends of post-truth online censorships that blasted the internet during the last decade. Popularity of censorship is something that seems to go in wave, and outside the US there seems to be more acceptance to government censorship as comparative to platform censorship. In smaller countries the distinction becomes a bit blurry if it is the government doing the censorship, or the ISP's doing it voluntarily, or the dominant market platform making the same decision. In my own industry I commonly hear people talk about self regulation in order to keep governments from interfering. This has benefits, but it also makes the action of the industry a dialog between government and private sector. Voluntarily removing undesired content is technically not censorship ordered by the government, but it is also not completely separated from the wishes of the government.

DEADMINCE 3y ago
Honestly, I kind of think censorship would be a positive thing when applied to people lacking education. Where to draw the line is the issue, but at the least maybe people who didn't finish highschool or get a GED or equivalent shouldn't be exposed to conspiracy theories that they then act on.
- _lvbh 3y ago
  What a dystopian idea. I understand the reasoning but that is an extremely slippery slope for the rich to control the poor
  - DEADMINCE 3y ago
    It's more about the educated controlling the dangerously ignorant.
- mrkeen 3y ago
  Education doesn't make for a good cutoff. > We examined the educational backgrounds of 75 terrorists behind some of the most significant recent terrorist attacks against Westerners. We found that a majority of them are college-educated, often in technical subjects like engineering. > In the four attacks for which the most complete information about the perpetrators' educational levels is available -- the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the 9/11 attacks, and the Bali bombings in 2002 -- 53 percent of the terrorists had either attended college or had received a college degree. [https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/opinion/the-madrassa-myth.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/opinion/the-madrassa-myth...]

DEADMINCE 3y ago

> I’m not sure about “dark day for the media” but it does feel like a dark day for Israel. I would never expect any theocracy to be a bastion of democracy. Israel can't really realize its goals and be free at the same time. Those goals are not compatible.

YZF 3y ago

I agree this is not good for Israel. A democracy is partly measured by its ability to tolerate voices it does not approve of. Israel should be stronger than this. I agree that using national security as an excuse is a slippery slope. This is mostly a symbolic move that will make very little difference. Likely it will push Al Jazeera to be more anti-Israeli but I'm sure they can make up (pun intended) for their lack of physical presence in the region. People that want to consume that content in Israel will have no problem (many already get this via satellite). A by the way is that this can still be challenged in the courts. If Al Jazeera chooses to go to the supreme court I imagine there's a pretty good chance that the decision will get overturned. They might intentionally decide not to do that because that outcome will put Israel in a positive light.

tw04 3y ago

I think there are limits - when it's a state-run agency that's peddling straight propaganda and not making an effort to produce news content, I don't see why you would let them operate within your borders: looking at you RT.

VelesDude 3y ago

The age old question, "Who will watch the watchmen?"

solatic 3y ago

> As Americans living post-9/11 will know, “national security” is a deliberately elastic term that can cover anything required in the moment. One of the genuine cultural differences between the US and Israel is that while Americans prefer greater liberty (even if it means less security), Israelis prefer greater security (even if it means less liberty). Which is to say, both cultures appreciate both values, but they have different priorities. Israel is a country where you will have your bags searched before entering shopping malls or train stations. That Israelis' privacy is violated on a daily basis by other Israelis is popular. There is a sense that the privacy violations are genuinely needed, result in genuine protection, and are not abused by those in power.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
int_19h 3y ago
I should note that "there is a sense that the privacy violations are genuinely needed, result in genuine protection, and are not abused by those in power" also describes modern Russia, for example.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]