6 ms·

I still cannot get over the fact that we, in Europe, have banned RT on the grounds that it is a publication sponsored by a "foreign" government and, as such, it

I still cannot get over the fact that we, in Europe, have banned RT on the grounds that it is a publication sponsored by a "foreign" government and, as such, it cannot be trusted. For one, so many publications here in Europe are financed by the local governments and we have no problem allowing them to function and act in the interest or said governments. Two, it flies in the face of an independent, free individual who can choose what to read and discern what the truth is. By blocking it, you are saying, "You, as an individual, are not able to take your own decisions, you are not able to separate truth from lies and fiction." If, supposing the later is actually the case, then all this "free" media is actually dangerous as it becomes a game of "don't trust them, trust us!" and whoever has the better image, the best marketing and exposure wins over the others.

notpushkin 1y ago
As a Russian, I wouldn’t trust anything that comes out on RT. Banning it though is a really bad move – something I would expect from the Russian government itself, not Europe. One of the reasons I’ve become disillusioned in EU recently.
- memonkey 1y ago
  Most thinking people will try not to take current event reporting at face value. For many Americans, it's easy to accept a lot of things your Mainstream Media Source gives you (including NPR or NYTs), and ironically when one of the current themes is to distrust mainstream media.
  - CoastalCoder 1y ago
    FWIW, I trust NPR reporting to only make true statements. What they're sometimes guilty of (in my judgement) is one-sided reporting. E.g., regarding illegal immigration, providing sympathetic personal stories of illegal immigrants, but not of the persons hurt by illegal immigration. It's also possible they've gotten better about this. I stopped listening years ago.
- atmavatar 1y ago
  > Banning it though is a really bad move Why? With how confidently you state that, I'm rather curious what reasons you have.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    Because free people should be able to decide for themselves what to read and listen to. If you want a longer answer, George Orwell penned an eloquent one all the way back in 1944: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-freedom-of-the-press/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
    - atmavatar 1y ago
      The problem is, we've seen how that ends up: you get bad actors masquerading as news (e.g., Fox News, Info Wars, OAN, etc.) and people flocking to low information, high entertainment vendors over good faith (if sometimes or even often flawed) traditional news (e.g., Associated Press, Reuters, BBC News, etc.). As such, you end up with a large cohort of people believing immigrants eat their pets, vaccines have microchips in them and are more harmful than the diseases they protect against, 5g towers cause cancer, chemtrails are a thing, and trickle-down economics benefits working people. Now, I may ultimately accept the idea that no matter what we do, we're always inevitably screwed, and even the smallest attempt to curtail speech will always end in an even worse outcome (like how there exist some infinities larger than others), but even I get a little uncomfortable being that nihilistic.
      - belorn 1y ago
        Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and freedom of receiving and imparting information and ideas. The United Nations was fully aware when making the declaration of human rights that bad actors existed. However the outcome of not having those rights have shown to be universally worse. It is not that one has to accept that we are inevitably screwed. That assumes that no amount of work or effort can address social problems peacefully, and that the only way for a functional society is through force. Im hoping that current decades of polarization and championing of censorship will end up resulting in similar conclusions as the UN did after world war 2. Censorship and violence only breed higher quantity and intensity of censorship and violence.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
JackYoustra 1y ago
I mean RT is bad. You're going to need a better example of something good that got banned.
preisschild 1y ago
> have banned RT on the grounds that it is a publication sponsored by a "foreign" government Not just a "foreign" government, but a government that is waging a hybrid war against the European Union, which includes disinformation through outlets such as RT.
tim333 1y ago
It's not really that it's sponsored by a "foreign" government and, as such cannot be trusted. It's more we are pissed off with Russia's invasion rape murder torture and the like and they can take their propaganda somewhere else.

notpushkin 1y ago

As a Russian, I wouldn’t trust anything that comes out on RT. Banning it though is a really bad move – something I would expect from the Russian government itself, not Europe. One of the reasons I’ve become disillusioned in EU recently.

memonkey 1y ago
Most thinking people will try not to take current event reporting at face value. For many Americans, it's easy to accept a lot of things your Mainstream Media Source gives you (including NPR or NYTs), and ironically when one of the current themes is to distrust mainstream media.
- CoastalCoder 1y ago
  FWIW, I trust NPR reporting to only make true statements. What they're sometimes guilty of (in my judgement) is one-sided reporting. E.g., regarding illegal immigration, providing sympathetic personal stories of illegal immigrants, but not of the persons hurt by illegal immigration. It's also possible they've gotten better about this. I stopped listening years ago.
atmavatar 1y ago
> Banning it though is a really bad move Why? With how confidently you state that, I'm rather curious what reasons you have.
- int_19h 1y ago
  Because free people should be able to decide for themselves what to read and listen to. If you want a longer answer, George Orwell penned an eloquent one all the way back in 1944: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-freedom-of-the-press/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
  - atmavatar 1y ago
    The problem is, we've seen how that ends up: you get bad actors masquerading as news (e.g., Fox News, Info Wars, OAN, etc.) and people flocking to low information, high entertainment vendors over good faith (if sometimes or even often flawed) traditional news (e.g., Associated Press, Reuters, BBC News, etc.). As such, you end up with a large cohort of people believing immigrants eat their pets, vaccines have microchips in them and are more harmful than the diseases they protect against, 5g towers cause cancer, chemtrails are a thing, and trickle-down economics benefits working people. Now, I may ultimately accept the idea that no matter what we do, we're always inevitably screwed, and even the smallest attempt to curtail speech will always end in an even worse outcome (like how there exist some infinities larger than others), but even I get a little uncomfortable being that nihilistic.
    - belorn 1y ago
      Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and freedom of receiving and imparting information and ideas. The United Nations was fully aware when making the declaration of human rights that bad actors existed. However the outcome of not having those rights have shown to be universally worse. It is not that one has to accept that we are inevitably screwed. That assumes that no amount of work or effort can address social problems peacefully, and that the only way for a functional society is through force. Im hoping that current decades of polarization and championing of censorship will end up resulting in similar conclusions as the UN did after world war 2. Censorship and violence only breed higher quantity and intensity of censorship and violence.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

JackYoustra 1y ago

I mean RT is bad. You're going to need a better example of something good that got banned.

preisschild 1y ago

> have banned RT on the grounds that it is a publication sponsored by a "foreign" government Not just a "foreign" government, but a government that is waging a hybrid war against the European Union, which includes disinformation through outlets such as RT.

tim333 1y ago

It's not really that it's sponsored by a "foreign" government and, as such cannot be trusted. It's more we are pissed off with Russia's invasion rape murder torture and the like and they can take their propaganda somewhere else.