4 ms·

One of those was @rtnews which is definitely state-sponsored propaganda and remains inaccessible to this day. They cooperated to some degree, but I'll go out o

One of those was @rtnews which is definitely state-sponsored propaganda and remains inaccessible to this day. They cooperated to some degree, but I'll go out on a limb to say that the authorities wanted Telegram to be fully subservient to western government interests.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
So what if it is state sponsored propaganda? Most media is biased in some way. It shouldn’t be censored. I want to hear their side of the story too.
- 331c8c71 2y ago
  I think your subtle arguments are wasted on EU's decision to stop the spread of misinformation and manipulation. It's that simple for them. Black and white. Us vs them. Don't think too much, you are taken care of by your "representatives" ...
- squidbeak 2y ago
  In this instance (RT being banned), it's Russia's quite candid strategy to undermine social cohesion in their enemies' societies, using disinformation. Margarita Simonyan and Vladislav Surkov have each bragged about its success. So yes, for social cohesion, when there's a malign external actor poisoning public discourse with the intention of splitting societies, a responsible government ought to tackle it.
  - whatnotests2 2y ago
    The old "enemy of the people" argument.
    - squidbeak 2y ago
      Information warfare is a real thing, and if you're suggesting governments shouldn't react to it - on the basis that doing so would fall under 'the old enemy of the people argument' - then what you're actually contending is that governments should neglect national defence.
  - hnpolicestate 2y ago
    Fascist lol.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    If we start throwing around terms like "social cohesion" to justify censorship in the West, how can we complain about China doing the same in the name of "social harmony"?
whimsicalism 2y ago
i should be allowed to watch whatever state propaganda i want, i'm a big boy 15 years ago in the US this would have been uncontroversial
- carbotaniuman 2y ago
  I'm sure the US government would have been real keen on you reading Kremlin news source 40 year ago...
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    there were multiple Kremlin propaganda outlets you could read in the US 40 years ago, although it is true that (IIRC) there were restrictions on broadcast television
  - hnpolicestate 2y ago
    It's legal. We have that right.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  It's still uncontroversial in the US, where RT remains widely available, although their local TV operations folded after a boycott by cable providers.
- dns_snek 2y ago
  Don't get me wrong, if you really want to watch it, I think you should be allowed to. Personally I'm undecided about whether these channels should be publicly available on e.g. free TV channels, but that's getting off topic.
- namdnay 2y ago
  15 years ago watching too much Taliban propaganda would have put you in Guantanamo pretty fast
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
squidbeak 2y ago
Eliminating child pornography and organised crime is a societal rather than 'government' interest. And rightly.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  think there is a societal interest in unsnoopable messaging. there are other low-hanging fruit EU governments could do to address crime, NL has basically become a narcostate and they are just sitting by and watching - Telegram is not the problem.
- logicchains 2y ago
  >Eliminating child pornography and organised crime is a societal rather than 'government' interest. Empirically speaking, governments have had absolutely zero success at this, but their attempts to do so have gotten them the kind of legal power over your life that organised crime could only dream about.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Huh? The traditional mafia is almost non-existent in the US today. RICO and its application has been highly successful at taking down the mafia. You could certainly argue that RICO was too powerful and is often misapplied, but I've never before seen anyone argue that it has been ineffective.
    - logicchains 2y ago
      Are you implying that after the Italian mafia there were no more organised crime gangs in the US? There's a huge number of organised crime gangs nowadays; who do you think is distributing the drugs responsible for America's massive drug problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gangs_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gangs_in_the_United_St... . A policy isn't a success if it kills one crime group only for it to be replaced with more, and the overall drug consumption/distribution rate doesn't decrease. More people are using illicit drugs than ever before: https://www.ibanet.org/unodc-report-drug-use-increase https://www.ibanet.org/unodc-report-drug-use-increase

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

So what if it is state sponsored propaganda? Most media is biased in some way. It shouldn’t be censored. I want to hear their side of the story too.

331c8c71 2y ago
I think your subtle arguments are wasted on EU's decision to stop the spread of misinformation and manipulation. It's that simple for them. Black and white. Us vs them. Don't think too much, you are taken care of by your "representatives" ...
squidbeak 2y ago
In this instance (RT being banned), it's Russia's quite candid strategy to undermine social cohesion in their enemies' societies, using disinformation. Margarita Simonyan and Vladislav Surkov have each bragged about its success. So yes, for social cohesion, when there's a malign external actor poisoning public discourse with the intention of splitting societies, a responsible government ought to tackle it.
- whatnotests2 2y ago
  The old "enemy of the people" argument.
  - squidbeak 2y ago
    Information warfare is a real thing, and if you're suggesting governments shouldn't react to it - on the basis that doing so would fall under 'the old enemy of the people argument' - then what you're actually contending is that governments should neglect national defence.
- hnpolicestate 2y ago
  Fascist lol.
- int_19h 2y ago
  If we start throwing around terms like "social cohesion" to justify censorship in the West, how can we complain about China doing the same in the name of "social harmony"?

whimsicalism 2y ago

i should be allowed to watch whatever state propaganda i want, i'm a big boy 15 years ago in the US this would have been uncontroversial

carbotaniuman 2y ago
I'm sure the US government would have been real keen on you reading Kremlin news source 40 year ago...
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  there were multiple Kremlin propaganda outlets you could read in the US 40 years ago, although it is true that (IIRC) there were restrictions on broadcast television
- hnpolicestate 2y ago
  It's legal. We have that right.
SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
It's still uncontroversial in the US, where RT remains widely available, although their local TV operations folded after a boycott by cable providers.
dns_snek 2y ago
Don't get me wrong, if you really want to watch it, I think you should be allowed to. Personally I'm undecided about whether these channels should be publicly available on e.g. free TV channels, but that's getting off topic.
namdnay 2y ago
15 years ago watching too much Taliban propaganda would have put you in Guantanamo pretty fast
- whimsicalism 2y ago

squidbeak 2y ago

Eliminating child pornography and organised crime is a societal rather than 'government' interest. And rightly.

whimsicalism 2y ago
think there is a societal interest in unsnoopable messaging. there are other low-hanging fruit EU governments could do to address crime, NL has basically become a narcostate and they are just sitting by and watching - Telegram is not the problem.
logicchains 2y ago
>Eliminating child pornography and organised crime is a societal rather than 'government' interest. Empirically speaking, governments have had absolutely zero success at this, but their attempts to do so have gotten them the kind of legal power over your life that organised crime could only dream about.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Huh? The traditional mafia is almost non-existent in the US today. RICO and its application has been highly successful at taking down the mafia. You could certainly argue that RICO was too powerful and is often misapplied, but I've never before seen anyone argue that it has been ineffective.
  - logicchains 2y ago
    Are you implying that after the Italian mafia there were no more organised crime gangs in the US? There's a huge number of organised crime gangs nowadays; who do you think is distributing the drugs responsible for America's massive drug problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gangs_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gangs_in_the_United_St... . A policy isn't a success if it kills one crime group only for it to be replaced with more, and the overall drug consumption/distribution rate doesn't decrease. More people are using illicit drugs than ever before: https://www.ibanet.org/unodc-report-drug-use-increase https://www.ibanet.org/unodc-report-drug-use-increase