4 ms·

I’m also quite concerned about the Western world adopting the Chinese style of governance but censorship at wartime is very different from censorship at peace t

by mrtksn 3y ago

I’m also quite concerned about the Western world adopting the Chinese style of governance but censorship at wartime is very different from censorship at peace time. False information leading to spreading misguided ideas is deadly at wartime because there is no time to address it. I definitely don’t support Italy blocking websites or the US blocking apps.

logicchains 3y ago
>I’m also quite concerned about the Western world adopting the Chinese style of governance but censorship at wartime is very different from censorship at peace time If you allow this then the government will just forever find excuses to be at war.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  We live in a broken world, there are no perfect solutions. But I would argue that staying alive comes as a primary priority.
  - guappa 3y ago
    Ah yes the "we must kill them, to stay alive" narrative. It has never been abused in the whole history of mankind.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      What are you even talking about? Of course those attacked must kill the attackers to stay alive.
cpursley 3y ago
What about all the misleading news (i.e., positive spin) in the Western world's "free press" that lead to many believing that Ukraine had a chance for a counter offensive (against even basic military thinking and logic). Didn't that lead to unnecessary suffering and deaths during war time (vs say an alternative, beefing up defense lines)? That's just a random recent example. Another older one is the the media going nuts over "WMDs", leading to an unnecessary US invasion and millions of deaths. My point being is that even free press can spread bad ideas and narratives - in fact, it frequently does. And those ideas should be able to be challenged, at any time, by any source.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  what a starange statement about the counterattack, as if there was a definite knowledge about the future and the Western propaganda suppressed it. They attempted at taking back their own lands and they failed. The same people claiming to know the future also used to claim that Russia would not attack and later that Ukraine will fall in matter of days. Maybe just stop listening to fortune tellers.
  - cpursley 3y ago
    Exactly, I prefer to listen to experts and the experts were saying it was a bad idea (esp without air power). It was news media and politicians (ie, not military experts) that cheered it on.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      It's amazing how you believe that militaries and politicians operate without experts and there're experts on the social media/ tradmedia who came together analysed the situation, came to a definitive prediction about the outcome of a military operation but the western media surpassed those experts and as a result politicians and military engaged in a futile counterattack. Fascinating mental model on how the world works.
      - cpursley 3y ago
        That’s exactly what happened, yeah. And warfare/foreign policy is not the only issue they gaslight us on.
      - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
        You're being very disrespectful in this conversation. I was GP has provided links and references when they made their comment, but they are certainly correct. The way the conflict is covered in US media makes it seem like Ukraine is wily superhero making good progress against the bumbling Russians. This does not reflect the current reality or future prospects in the conflict.
guappa 3y ago
Is italy at war? I must have missed the memo.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  It’s not at war, that’s why I don’t support such a thing.
raxxorraxor 3y ago
It isn't and shouldn't be different in war time either. If you allow this exception, you will just always be at war. Censorship for security reasons isn't a new concept.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  Not at all, you can't be at war all the time as people and ammo is limited resource. Just stick tight to definitions and observe for technicality BS. I.e. don't take "War on drugs" as a war, don't assume you are at war when the countries no longer fight but technically never signed a peace agreement etc. I think I made it pretty clear that the exception for censorship is only when people are actively killing each other and this is because killing happens fast and its irreversible, therefore tolerances to tackle spread of false information is too small to be allowed.
  - raxxorraxor 3y ago
    Not the war on drugs, but certainly the "war on terror". This is not clinging to definitions, it is political reality that such measures would also be undertaken in peace time, any justification would suffice. Who do you believe would draw the line here anyway? Also, especially in times of war, there is a heightened interest of people getting news and independent reporting. Any other news isn't worth the read.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      Yeah, just don’t fall for that kind of BS.

by mrtksn 3y ago

logicchains 3y ago

>I’m also quite concerned about the Western world adopting the Chinese style of governance but censorship at wartime is very different from censorship at peace time If you allow this then the government will just forever find excuses to be at war.

mrtksn 3y ago
We live in a broken world, there are no perfect solutions. But I would argue that staying alive comes as a primary priority.
- guappa 3y ago
  Ah yes the "we must kill them, to stay alive" narrative. It has never been abused in the whole history of mankind.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    What are you even talking about? Of course those attacked must kill the attackers to stay alive.

cpursley 3y ago

What about all the misleading news (i.e., positive spin) in the Western world's "free press" that lead to many believing that Ukraine had a chance for a counter offensive (against even basic military thinking and logic). Didn't that lead to unnecessary suffering and deaths during war time (vs say an alternative, beefing up defense lines)? That's just a random recent example. Another older one is the the media going nuts over "WMDs", leading to an unnecessary US invasion and millions of deaths. My point being is that even free press can spread bad ideas and narratives - in fact, it frequently does. And those ideas should be able to be challenged, at any time, by any source.

mrtksn 3y ago
what a starange statement about the counterattack, as if there was a definite knowledge about the future and the Western propaganda suppressed it. They attempted at taking back their own lands and they failed. The same people claiming to know the future also used to claim that Russia would not attack and later that Ukraine will fall in matter of days. Maybe just stop listening to fortune tellers.
- cpursley 3y ago
  Exactly, I prefer to listen to experts and the experts were saying it was a bad idea (esp without air power). It was news media and politicians (ie, not military experts) that cheered it on.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    It's amazing how you believe that militaries and politicians operate without experts and there're experts on the social media/ tradmedia who came together analysed the situation, came to a definitive prediction about the outcome of a military operation but the western media surpassed those experts and as a result politicians and military engaged in a futile counterattack. Fascinating mental model on how the world works.
    - cpursley 3y ago
      That’s exactly what happened, yeah. And warfare/foreign policy is not the only issue they gaslight us on.
    - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
      You're being very disrespectful in this conversation. I was GP has provided links and references when they made their comment, but they are certainly correct. The way the conflict is covered in US media makes it seem like Ukraine is wily superhero making good progress against the bumbling Russians. This does not reflect the current reality or future prospects in the conflict.

guappa 3y ago

Is italy at war? I must have missed the memo.

mrtksn 3y ago
It’s not at war, that’s why I don’t support such a thing.

raxxorraxor 3y ago

It isn't and shouldn't be different in war time either. If you allow this exception, you will just always be at war. Censorship for security reasons isn't a new concept.

mrtksn 3y ago
Not at all, you can't be at war all the time as people and ammo is limited resource. Just stick tight to definitions and observe for technicality BS. I.e. don't take "War on drugs" as a war, don't assume you are at war when the countries no longer fight but technically never signed a peace agreement etc. I think I made it pretty clear that the exception for censorship is only when people are actively killing each other and this is because killing happens fast and its irreversible, therefore tolerances to tackle spread of false information is too small to be allowed.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  Not the war on drugs, but certainly the "war on terror". This is not clinging to definitions, it is political reality that such measures would also be undertaken in peace time, any justification would suffice. Who do you believe would draw the line here anyway? Also, especially in times of war, there is a heightened interest of people getting news and independent reporting. Any other news isn't worth the read.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    Yeah, just don’t fall for that kind of BS.