Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 202 posts

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

#121

Post by blub »

iso1210 wrote: post #23
yrgulation wrote: post #20

The fact that pro putin’s propaganda channel comments are getting upvoted, while those against are downvoted says a lot about the type of people that use this forum. Russia today and sputnik constantly promote anti western values, politicians and groups and are a major source of misinformation yet some call banning these weapons of war censorship. Appalling.

HN has some of the most pro-putin comments I see anywhere. These are established accounts with years of history talking about tech, so not Russian bots or whatever.

What you’re seeing here is a place which is not 100% anti-Russia and recognizes that there are gray areas to anything. This is invaluable and anyone who values liberal democracies should support such discussion forums.

The problem is, many people only support liberal democracy and free speech when it suits them. This was very much visible when censoring and demonizing those that were criticizing vaccines or the policies of Western governments, it’s visible now too.

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

#122

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

kube-system wrote: post #119
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It is certainly weak, but I think it meets the above-quoted description. It only applies in certain cases, and only guarantees access to a minimal degree, but it is more than nothing.

The quote was:

> rules that demand to always provide both sides perspective

This regulation does not satisfy the "always" part of the quoted description. In fact the regulation does not even reach the standards of "most of the time" or "often." If the description had been, "in certain rare cases," then this regulation would have satisfied it, but then the whole comment would have made no sense w.r.t. the banning of RT.

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

#123

Post by shabier »

keymone wrote: post #103
shabier wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So North Korea is doing good then

sure, from their perspective they are. but they are a tyrannical dictatorship - we know that. don't we? do you? just checking, because, you know...

> because, you know...

No, please, do tell. Does a different stance make you fascist? Or does it make you pro-Putin? Or are you about to accuse me of being paid for taking a different stance?

You've already called me "fcking piece of sht garbage of a human" in a different thread. Ironic.

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

#124

Post by lamp987 »

keymone wrote: post #107
pydry wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you also apply this rule consistently with all of the Iraq war cheerleaders who also promoted fake news (like yellowcake)? Im reminded of Chomsky's quote here (it's surprising how often it is relevant): >Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re…

[flagged]

pointing out logical inconsistency is literally not whataboutism

most people here are not supportive of banning cnn etc

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

#125

Post by keymone »

shabier wrote: post #123
keymone wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sure, from their perspective they are. but they are a tyrannical dictatorship - we know that. don't we? do you? just checking, because, you know...

> because, you know... No, please, do tell. Does a different stance make you fascist? Or does it make you pro-Putin? Or are you about to accuse me of being paid for taking a different stance? You've already called me "f cking piece of sh t garbage of a human" in a different thread. Ironic.

it would explain a lot about you if you don't consider north korea a tyrannical dictatorship. so do you or do you not?

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

#126

Post by keymone »

lamp987 wrote: post #124
keymone wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

pointing out logical inconsistency is literally not whataboutism most people here are not supportive of banning cnn etc

"think RT is bad? well what about CNN?"

how is that not whataboutism exactly?

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

#127

Post by lamp987 »

lm28469 wrote: post #88
Gareth321 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” Easily my favourite George R. R. Martin quote. We discovered why free speech is important during the 17th century in the Enlightenment period. The scientific method itself owes its existence to free speech, and the ability for any person to disagree with any other person, regardless of th…

Free speech has never been absolute. RT is a state owned propaganda organ, disinformation doesn't contribute to free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

"as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise."

this still applies. RT readers arent shooting you.

funny how the paradox of tolerance is thrown around most by the people who understand it the least.

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

#128

Post by coffeeblack »

keymone wrote: post #67
coffeeblack wrote: post #3

Good. It’s important to be able to see all sides. Everybody with a brain will know to be very skeptical of any news source directly controlled by a government. Same is true for CGTN and other channels still on YT.

RT reported about ukrainian army crucifying a child in Donbas in 2014 which literally caused some people in Russia to volunteer as fighters and cross the border with intention to kill ukrainians. No, RT should be banned and every person working for it should be jailed for life. Freedom of speech is not freedom of inciting violence and hatred. Edit: here, educate yourself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucified_boy

Every conflict party in every conflict does that.

Remember the story about Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators in Kuwait? Told by a “nurse” in from of the UN, so that the US would get permission to invade Iraq?

People need to be able to see these stories to learn to recognize them as the bullshit they are. Hiding them will do more harm that good in the long to.

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

#129

Post by shabier »

keymone wrote: post #120
shabier wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> doesn't make your take any more credible it makes my awareness of the situation on the ground stronger > 1) support censorship of enemy's propaganda vehicle. wonder why would you omit that little fact. getting paid to do so? > 2) don't care to verify stories you lying sack of shit. > 3) are under the impression that being Ukrainian makes your take automatically truthful you lying sack of shit.

No post body was provided.

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

#130

Post by pydry »

keymone wrote: post #126
lamp987 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pointing out logical inconsistency is literally not whataboutism most people here are not supportive of banning cnn etc

"think RT is bad? well what about CNN?" how is that not whataboutism exactly?

Coz it was an honest question. I was curious about whether you would genuinely like to see every CNN employee jailed for life.

You answered clearly and in the affirmative.

I dont agree with your answer and I dont find it to be consistent with a belief in free speech but it is consistent with what you previously said.

Post reply on HN