171–180 of 202 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Show me one 'Ukraine is in war' topic in RT and Russia invaded Ukraine. Which is literally what happened. Show me one "How NATO's push eastward scared Russia into war" on CNN.
Is this why they invaded Georgia in 2008?. Russia sure as a habit of invading former soviet states them claiming some rubbish as a justification why.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Show me one 'Ukraine is in war' topic in RT and Russia invaded Ukraine. Which is literally what happened. Show me one "How NATO's push eastward scared Russia into war" on CNN.
How convenient. What was Russia's excuse before NATO was created? Do you really think that if NATO did not exist that Putin would keep it in its borders?
> What was Russia's excuse before NATO was created?
Excuse for what? What are you even talking about? Do you even know what NATO is and when and how it was formed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this virtue signaling doesn't apply to times of war. call me despicable all you want, but allowing enemy in your infospace unchecked is plain dumb.
I hate to be the cynical arm chair commenter but you have to understand that most of the world is not at war with Russia at the moment. I can understand if the Ukrainian government wants their "airwaves" clear of russian propaganda, but asking the whole world to censor them brings no benefit in my opinion. More so, Ukrainians probably can tell from their own experiences how much bullshit there's on RT, so it serves n…
the sooner you realize that putin is at war with you - the better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Show me one 'Ukraine is in war' topic in RT and Russia invaded Ukraine. Which is literally what happened. Show me one "How NATO's push eastward scared Russia into war" on CNN.
> Show me one "How NATO's push eastward scared Russia into war" on CNN. The only time this comes up on CNN is when they show Putin saying it and talk about what a bullshit lie it is. The fact is Putin wants to reestablish the Russian Empire. This was just one of the myriad excuses he used to invade. Repeating it is repeating Putin's propaganda, which is the job of his propaganda groups RT/Sputnik/etc
And everyone happily consumes this, as no one has their own opinion anymore. Doesn't make it less of a concern from security perspective of Russia.
Frankly, this kind of chauvinistic attitude is one of the main actual reasons of why Russian-Western relations had degraded to this point. All of this had already been predicted by political experts all over the world almost 20 years ago.
> The fact is Putin wants to reestablish the Russian Empire
Please don't state such ridiculous assertions as facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> most countries have laws on how media should work Much of how the internet works reflects its origin in the United States where freedom of speech is a paramount value. In America, the notion is that it's better to combat lies with the truth than with repression. In the era of Fake News and The Big Lie, this value is being stretched thin. It may be that we'll need rules to restrict the spreading of untruths, perhaps…
At least some punishment or force them to comply with the basic rule " If you put false/wrong information on first page like Bob did Y. then justice can force you to put on the same first page a retraction like "We are sorry, we were wrong, Bob did not did X" and pay Bob damages. So if some TV channel or Internet media thing says shit like "Masks do not help with Covid" they will have to pay a fine and publish "Masks…
There is already the "The Foreign Agents Registration Act" in the US.
And Russia had recently copy-pasted it into their laws, which had caused a massive internal shitstorm and a heavy criticism from the West.
It was a fun moment of hypocrisy to watch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worthless since everything on RT is "Russia is always right, the rest are always wrong, and also they're Nazis/fascists/imperialists, and America/NATO did it too btw".
So it is western media but from a Russian POV
On the other hand, I dare you to find an RT story critical of Putin, without any sugarcoating. Beyond the war, on literally any topic.
So no, it's not western media from a Russian POV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's literally censorship. It doesn't stop being censorship just because you want it censored. Trying to redefine words like that insults your readers. People might consider your position a bit more if it's not obscured by your ego.
No, it's literally moderation. Platforms can promote or demote content as they see fit to better appeal to the market. Newspapers are not obligated to print every letter to the editor. Youtube is not legally bound to air any random video that was uploaded. Censorship is when the government steps in to define allowable speech.
Nevertheless, they are still engaging in censorship, per Wikipedia:
> Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of his or her own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
You are doing exactly what I just warned against: trying to redefine words to exempt yourself from criticism.
It's insulting. Nobody has said or implied that YouTube is breaking the law here, so why does your reply hinge on that?
More importantly, why would anyone want such a shameless megalomaniac filtering what they can read and watch? That's the crux of censorship: you're not just refusing to personally host some content - you're demanding everyone else does the same in order to ensure that it's not available at all.
The merits of censoring an enemy propaganda outlet during a war can be debated, but pretending that it isn't censorship at all is equal parts absurd and dangerous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's literally censorship. It doesn't stop being censorship just because you want it censored. Trying to redefine words like that insults your readers. People might consider your position a bit more if it's not obscured by your ego.
No, it's literally moderation. Platforms can promote or demote content as they see fit to better appeal to the market. Newspapers are not obligated to print every letter to the editor. Youtube is not legally bound to air any random video that was uploaded. Censorship is when the government steps in to define allowable speech.
Although, given that it's not a newspaper, but rather a massive telecom service, it should be.
> Censorship is when the government steps in to define allowable speech
Censorship is not a technicality, and if someone is capable of doing a mass filtering of opinions, it's still censorship. And given that the government can pressure private entities into practical censorship (congress hearings on how facebook does a bad job of filtering alternative opinions on controversial topics), the technicality part is so thin that there is no real practical difference, except maybe you don't even have any legal way to challenge it, given that there is no legislation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it is western media but from a Russian POV
You have people defending Putin and his war on western media. You can find them without trouble. On the other hand, I dare you to find an RT story critical of Putin, without any sugarcoating. Beyond the war, on literally any topic. So no, it's not western media from a Russian POV.
Both sides are, generally speaking, enforcing a narrative and rejecting objectivity in favor of the narrative ergo it's propaganda