31–40 of 65 posts
That is crossing a line. In free societies we should be able to hear different sides.
> That is crossing a line. In free societies we shoild be able to hear different sides. RT and Sputnik aren't "sides" in a democratic debate. They are propaganda outlets participating in bad faith with a goal to undermine those societies that have those debates.
That is crossing a line. In free societies we should be able to hear different sides.
> That is crossing a line. In free societies we shoild be able to hear different sides. RT and Sputnik aren't "sides" in a democratic debate. They are propaganda outlets participating in bad faith with a goal to undermine those societies that have those debates.
I got: > 403 - Forbidden . That’s an error. Client does not have access rights to the content so server is rejecting to give proper response. That’s all we know. (France, no VPN) edit: it works when connected from a datacenter (from France)
Works for me, on a residential connection.
Censorship happens when the authorities are afraid of the viewpoints of their opponents. So the EU is afraid of allowing Russian perspectives to be learned about by EU citizens. Its becoming plainer by the day that we don't live in a democracy.
I regularly read RT and occasionally Sputnik. I also read the opposing views held by Western media like Economist, FT, Independent, etc. RT are always careful to acknowledge opposing viewpoints. For example, in all articles on the war, so far, they say "Moscow claims ..." and "Kiev claims ..." Censorship happens when the authorities are afraid of the viewpoints of their opponents. So the EU is afraid of allowing Russ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That is crossing a line. In free societies we shoild be able to hear different sides. RT and Sputnik aren't "sides" in a democratic debate. They are propaganda outlets participating in bad faith with a goal to undermine those societies that have those debates.
So who decides what a propaganda outlet is? Some was fox news is one. Some say MSNBC is propaganda. And some say all major news channels allow the narrative to be shifted by outside powers, and therefore qualify as propaganda
Earlier quoted context omitted.
RF is at information war with the West for about a decade.
So is China, but we aren't seeing a ban of their news. If there was a more consistent ban of countries engaging in an information war I wouldn't have as much of an issue. When people call for a restriction or ban of Chinese news they are accused of being racist censors.
> RF is at information war with the West for about a decade.
I just answered your question.
> So is China
So, you know the answer already. There are countries, which cannot attack West directly, so they attack indirectly, using propaganda. Some countries are better at that than others. However, one mad country directly attacks another country now, which tries to join the Western block, to keep them in their area of influence. This is the direct attack at almost the member of the West with goal to make West weaker.
That is crossing a line. In free societies we should be able to hear different sides.