10 ms·
I would. Appetite for censorship should be measured against something I find unpalatable. When one starts down the road of making decisions for others - it is
by heelix 1y ago
I would. Appetite for censorship should be measured against something I find unpalatable. When one starts down the road of making decisions for others - it is only a question of time before someone does the same for you with possibly a different perspective. The moment one finds themselves outside the groupthink on spaces vs tabs, I'd like that bar to be as far away as possible.
- bootsmann 1y ago> The moment one finds themselves outside the groupthink The RT ban is not about what RT publishes, you are free to publish their arguments more or less verbatim on your own site without getting sanctioned in Europe (which indeed some people do). The RT ban is about RT being a state owned propaganda network owned by the government thats waging an active war against Europe.
- ur-whale 1y ago> The RT ban is about RT being a state owned propaganda network owned by the government thats waging an active war against Europe. And ... ?
- multjoy 1y agoDo you think allowing an enemy state free reign to broadcast propaganda to your population makes good tactical sense?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- dvdkon 1y agoFreedom of speech rarely makes "tactical sense", which is why we as citizens need to continually fight for it.
- fireflash38 1y agoThe irony of freedom of speech, much like democracy in general, is that it can destroy itself.
- zahlman 1y agoThis is inconsistent with the upthread argument: > The RT ban is not about what RT publishes, you are free to publish their arguments more or less verbatim on your own site without getting sanctioned in Europe (which indeed some people do).
- multjoy 1y agoThe difference is they're not an enemy sovereign state. This isn't contradictory or illogical.
- jdiff 1y agoIt is not. People are allowed to do what they will, as long as those people are not the outlet itself. The propaganda outlet loses control over it and cannot push the media through, only hope that others pull it from them.
- logicchains 1y agoIf you believe in any kind of system of morality, it's absolutely possible for one's own government to be in the moral wrong and the enemy government to be in the moral right. Censorship means the citizens may never learn that their country is the bad guy in that case.
- zx8080 1y agosomehow missed the fact that the EU has declared war already
- multjoy 1y agoYou don't need to declare war to have enemies. After all, Russia has launched chemical and radiological attacks on EU states.
- 0x073 1y agoparadox of tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- raverbashing 1y agoSome people really do not need their holidays north of Seoul prevented
- Matl 1y agoRight, but as long as you wage genocide against non-Europeans then Europe will not only support you, but will go after the people protesting it. That's the morals of European leaders today.
- raverbashing 1y agoEvery person and institution have a limited number of flips to give My GAF meter is pretty low for anti-secular groups that shot first. And their own neighbours who were "supposed" to be their allied seem to think the same
- Matl 1y agoApart from the fact that you seem to be equating a whole people with one group, you also seem to conveniently not realize that the government committing the genocide is a non-secular messianic one, with a deep seated belief of the superiority of their own religious group over any other, but particularly feel themselves superior to the people they occupy for decades, who of course despite them being occupied are always supposed to find compassion and understanding for their occupier first, otherwise the occupation cannot end, right? There were and are plenty of reasonable groups one could work with, but the genocide is about grabbing land, asserting dominance and exacting revenge, while feeding a victimhood complex that is never able to acknowledge its own mistakes.
- FirmwareBurner 1y agoSo why haven't we banned Israeli news sites and companies for their war/genocide in Gaza?
- simonask 1y agoBecause Israel is not engaged in a war against Europe.
- zosima 1y agoRussia has attacked Ukraine. Not Europe. Neither Ukraine nor Israel is part of EU or NATO.
- depressedpanda 1y ago> Russia has attacked Ukraine. Not Europe. Ukraine is most definitely a part of Europe.
- dragonwriter 1y ago> Russia has attacked Ukraine. Moldova and Georgia and Ukraine, as relates to its aggression in Europe.
- FirmwareBurner 1y agoRussia is also not engaged in a direct war with Europe yet we still sanction them because they are by proxy, similar to Israel: Israel's actions in Gaza are creating waves of refugees that Europe has to take in, and then we have the potential terrorist attacks by those people as revenge for Europe's military aid to Israel who see Europe as partly to blame for destruction of their home country. Israel definitely should be sanctioned till it stops its war crimes because doing nothing will directly affect us.
- zahlman 1y agoIf there's nothing wrong with what is being said, then why should it matter who says it? Does propaganda somehow gain effectiveness because it comes "from the source"?
- jpalawaga 1y agoSanctions are about impinging others freedom because they’re behaving badly. “Why can’t I play with the kid who is in timeout? Is it because you hate my freedom?”
- tpoacher 1y agoExcept your analogy here should be more "there's a kid on timeout so nobody gets to play, just in case"
- zahlman 1y agoI would think that enforcing economic sanctions would be a far more effective use of time and effort.
- throwaway290 1y agoShutting down a business = economic sanctions. Blocking domain of a web publication is part of shutting it down. What do you prefer instead, to make domain registrars enforce sanctions instead of blocking on DNS level? That would quickly make so that no one with Russian passport is able to register a domain no matter how much we are against russia or putin
- bootsmann 1y agoBecause the people writing the laws within the EU are also acutely aware that phrasing this ban too broadly constrains freedom of speech. The way the ban is handed is walking the fine line between impinging freedom of speech and denying a enemy state from waging an information war. Romania had to rerun an election due to Russian inference, this isn’t just a phantom the EU made up to censor opinions it doesn’t like.
- Xelbair 1y agoi would like to remind you that Germany was one of the biggest recipients of russian gas in Europe, and worked actively to keep it flowing despite the war, and didn't try to break away from their dependence for a very long time. It's pure hypocrisy coupled with conformity - or rather virtue signalling. Send junk weapons to Ukraine to showcase that you do support the cause, meanwhile keep buying gas the same time go after their propaganda because that looks nice.
- simion314 1y ago>I would. Appetite for censorship should be measured against something I find unpalatable. In your country if say some public TV would publish hard core porn mid day for children to see, would there be consequences? like fines and license removal? I am sure in civilized countries that TV station will be punished. Now imagine you have a Ruzzian TV station publishing hard core porn for children to see, how to you punsish them without paid trolls claiming censorship ? Because this si what happens, in Romania Romanian TV station need to respect the Romanian laws , liek for example pay fines and retract any falsehoods and mistakes, but Ruzzians can publish fake documents and videos and if we want them to respect the laws of our countries we it is censorship... blocking faked documents is bad, blocking boobs is good in the land of the free
- taminka 1y ago> In your country if say some public TV would publish hard core porn mid day for children to see, would there be consequences? like fines and license removal? I am sure in civilized countries that TV station will be punished rt hasn't done this and there are concrete laws against doing this, if rt violated them, they would/should fined/suspended, it's really that simple, do you have any real examples of illegal things they've carried out? and if you're implying that extrajudicial measures are the only effective method to deal w/ situations like these, then there's an issue w/ the laws just because censorship is carried out against a cause you don't like, doesn't make it justified, since it's very likely to be used in less benevolent ways in the future
- rvnx 1y agoIt is similar to the problem of pornography online. If you are a parent, it is your responsibility to watch your kids and install a porn filter on their computer / tv / phones. It is pointless to have websites to verify that you are old enough, as there always be websites from abroad who will not respect the law, and it forces you to leak your identity (who becomes tied to your IP address). If you are not happy with propaganda, it is your role and the role of schools to educate people around about how to consume information and look with a critical view.
- torben-friis 1y agoThere is a difference I think between unpalatable content (that you disagree with, that you find incorrect, and so on) and content generated with the specific purpose of deceiving the reader. I used to be a hardline freedom of information defender, but we must face the fact that humanity has become way too good at manufactoring opinions and even facts. We're exposed to this threat at all levels, from your local company invading your feed with hidden ads in legitimate tiktok content to nation states influencing your political worldview. Considering yourself immune to this manipulation is as naive as thinking you don't need vaccines - depressingly, we've far beyond the point where individual protection is enough.