Russian news channel RT to broadcast on Rumble after Big Tech curbs

Post by shabier » Mon, Mar 07, 2022, 2:43 PM UTC

throw_m239339 wrote: post #98

shabier wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Freedom of speech is not freedom of inciting violence and hatred. Zelensky lied about a Russian shell hitting a nuclear plant and called for retaliation, which is exactly inciting violence. There's a lot of misinformation spread by both sides (Russia and the West) but silencing any of them would be stupid and unfair.

> but silencing any of them would be stupid and unfair. unfair to whom exactly? Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the massacre of its citizen is certainly a bigger injustice.

Post by jonathanstrange » Mon, Mar 07, 2022, 2:45 PM UTC

cabirum wrote: post #104

jonathanstrange wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A page that doesn't even reveal openly who runs it (real names, affiliations, background) is completely worthless crap. If you judge alleged "news" uncritically like that, just by consuming it, you're part of the problem.

They don't have to reveal their identities in order for their statements/arguments to be valid. It also eliminates authority bias.

Post by keymone » Mon, Mar 07, 2022, 2:49 PM UTC

shabier wrote: post #114

keymone wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the issue now is not "how good of a reporting does this or that media produce?" the issue is "a literal fascist government is invading a sovereign country and their propaganda machine is in full throttle mode".

> the issue is "a literal fascist government is invading a sovereign country and their propaganda machine is in full throttle mode". Explain to me how you would come to that conclusion if it wasn't for the media? And how would you justify spreading that information if it came from "not really accurate or objective" media? Without being able to cross-check, you're just spreading one-sided gossip, if not rumors like th…

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Mon, Mar 07, 2022, 2:55 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #99

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rules that demand to always provide both sides perspective Not sure what country you're referring to, but there's certainly no such rule in the US, Australia, or the UK. In the US it would be unconstitutional.

The US actually does have regulations that requires that, although it’s fairly weak: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule This rule has actually had a notable effect in the current election cycle: https://www.newsweek.com/fccs-equal-time-rules-prompt-statio...

Post by kube-system » Mon, Mar 07, 2022, 2:58 PM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #117

kube-system wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US actually does have regulations that requires that, although it’s fairly weak: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule This rule has actually had a notable effect in the current election cycle: https://www.newsweek.com/fccs-equal-time-rules-prompt-statio...

The regulation requires equal access for political candidates during an election, which is substantially different and weaker than the claim I was rebutting.