| ▲ | mtsr 4 days ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | klabb3 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Not parent but I'm skeptical because normalizing blocking is a very real slippery slope. Last night I debugged an issue with one of my apps for 1h, it turned out one of the Cloudflare IPs my device got were legally blocked in Spain. Not even ISP DNS, but the IP. And this is because of some CF customer hosting a football (soccer) streaming site. This is the new normal, in a democratic country. What the post is talking about in Germany seems similar. And these are democratic countries with many constitutional freedoms. This is not a hypothetical, but happening today. ID verification is already implemented in the UK. Chat control is possibly next. So let me flip the question: if a certain thing is illegal in a jurisdiction, but hosted outside, is it justified to block access to the hosting provider (notably, including Cloudflare and other giants)? |
|
| ▲ | heelix 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | zahlman 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If 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 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Sanctions 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 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Except your analogy here should be more "there's a kid on timeout so nobody gets to play, just in case" | |
| ▲ | zahlman 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I would think that enforcing economic sanctions would be a far more effective use of time and effort. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway290 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Shutting 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 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because 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. |
| |
| ▲ | ur-whale 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 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 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Do you think allowing an enemy state free reign to broadcast propaganda to your population makes good tactical sense? | | |
| ▲ | dvdkon 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Freedom of speech rarely makes "tactical sense", which is why we as citizens need to continually fight for it. | | |
| ▲ | fireflash38 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The irony of freedom of speech, much like democracy in general, is that it can destroy itself. |
| |
| ▲ | logicchains 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If 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. | |
| ▲ | zahlman 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This 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). | | |
| ▲ | jdiff 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It 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. | |
| ▲ | multjoy 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The difference is they're not an enemy sovereign state. This isn't contradictory or illogical. |
| |
| ▲ | 0x073 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | paradox of tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance | |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | zx8080 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | somehow missed the fact that the EU has declared war already | | |
| ▲ | multjoy 4 days ago | parent [-] | | You don't need to declare war to have enemies. After all, Russia has launched chemical and radiological attacks on EU states. |
|
| |
| ▲ | raverbashing 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Some people really do not need their holidays north of Seoul prevented |
| |
| ▲ | Matl 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Right, 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 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Every 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 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Apart 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 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So why haven't we banned Israeli news sites and companies for their war/genocide in Gaza? | | |
| ▲ | simonask 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Because Israel is not engaged in a war against Europe. | | |
| ▲ | FirmwareBurner 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Russia 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. | | |
| ▲ | simonask 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to completely ignore the historical context of these two conflicts. There is no question that Russia's war in Ukraine is a proxy war against the West - they say so directly by justifying it as a defense against "NATO encroachment" and making demands that the Ukraine can never, say, join the EU. Israel should be sanctioned because of the war crimes and the genocide perpetrated by their government, I agree, but that's a different thing. |
| |
| ▲ | zosima 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Russia has attacked Ukraine. Not Europe. Neither Ukraine nor Israel is part of EU or NATO. | | |
| ▲ | depressedpanda 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Russia has attacked Ukraine. Not Europe. Ukraine is most definitely a part of Europe. | | |
| ▲ | zosima 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, and so is big parts of Russia. Attacking one country is not the same as attacking a continent. | | |
| ▲ | simonask 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Their very justification for the war is supposed "NATO encroachment". It is very clearly a proxy war against the EU. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Russia has attacked Ukraine. Moldova and Georgia and Ukraine, as relates to its aggression in Europe. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Xelbair 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | i 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. |
| |
| ▲ | kace91 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There 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. | |
| ▲ | simion314 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >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 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It 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. | | |
| ▲ | petre 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Propaganda affects everyone, not just kids. It even affects people with university studies but who have given up thinking for themselves. The problem is that they authorities are banning websites, while social media is riddled with propaganda. They claim to do something which clearly doesn't work. The Internet used to be cool in the '90 when it wasn't regulated and Meta, Google and Tiktok didn't exist. Now it's all ads, propaganda and hate speech. | | |
| ▲ | zx8080 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > ads, propaganda and hate speech Just think about this (which is not 100% correct, but for the sake of discussion): it's probably not meta, google and tiktok. It's the internet peoples who are the source of all that. It's peoples who say hate, who push for ideas they believe in, and they also (surprise!) publish ads! (While google et cetera are just a medium, with lots of moderation, yep.). | | |
| ▲ | petre 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It's really the bots and algorithms are the source of all of that, promoting somebody's agenda. Now AI too. Remember, Tay the Microsoft bot that they put on Twitter and it became nazi the next day? It's that multiplied by the number of stars in the visible universe. The only safer places are heavily moderated hobby related forums with actual people. Anti vaxxing is not a hobby btw. |
|
| |
| ▲ | simion314 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >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. This is as pointless as saying that is my role as a consumer to test the food that I buy to ensure it is not contaminated with shit, so instead of punishing the companies that have contaminated food we should allow them to sell if even if we know it contains literal shit and instead teach our children in school how to use equipment to test the food. Sorry for the Ruzzian puppets but soem countries are not retarded and they decided to block the toxic food today and not ignore the victims, as I said in the original comments we have laws and the fact that you are from Ruzzia should not put you above our laws, RT shoudl stay banned until they open a local branch where we can apply the fine to them equaly as we apply to our own media. Also there are a lot of Ruzzian money wasted on social media to spread actual fake shit, priovable fake shit that I think we need to really go further in identifying the source of behind those fake crap and arrest, fine and sanction the individuals behind that shit, no level of education can just make a person intelligent or make them do investigative work to confirm that some information that he really, really loves is in fact false. And I know some fascist here will claim that trush is not objective, and my response is that a photoshoped document is 100% fake in all natural logic systems. The strategy used in Romanian presidential campaign by the Ruzzian aligned side was to put faked documents or information on social media then have media people share in on social media and then bringt the faked document in discussion on TV. So don't cry for the regular idiot they still get their conspiracies and faked information from Ruzzia on social media and sometimes even in the mail, as an example they sent people faked official looking letters that they are getting called to military service to go and fight in Ukraine. So please freedom of media but there must be consequences for external media not only for local one. |
|
| |
| ▲ | hnlmorg 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don’t think your porn comparison works because normally what happens is governments set rules about what content can be shown at what times. In the UK, we call it the “watershed”. Setting limits on what content can be shown at what times isn’t censorship because you’re not actually censoring content. What you’re doing is setting rules about scheduling content. | | |
| ▲ | rvnx 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | What you actually need is to have a feature on iPhone / Android (and on the home Wi-Fi) to block porn and that parents can enter a pin-code to unlock that, if you consider this is non-acceptable in your family. | | |
| ▲ | hnlmorg 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Some broadcasters do already have this feature. For example if you watch adult content (doesn’t have to be nudity, could be violent shows or other content that isnt considered appropriate for children) on SkyTV (UK satellite) then then you get promoted for a pin if its before 9pm. The thing I referred to in my previous comment is more of a historical thing before smart TVs and similar tech. Current RF technology is still just an evolution of the same signals sent 70+ years ago. So they’d moderate content via scheduling. “Terrestrial TV” still works that way today. |
| |
| ▲ | simion314 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | My point is about consequences, my question is what happens if a TV station in UK is not following that rule? | | |
| ▲ | hnlmorg 4 days ago | parent [-] | | They would get fined. | | |
| ▲ | simion314 3 days ago | parent [-] | | >They would get fined. Right, so my local TV gets fined if they published something fake, like for example they had a news about some bullshit happening in Romania but they were showing a video from a different country, the TV claimed it was stupidity and not manipulation, they got fined. So I want RT and other media to respect the exact same laws, if they do not want to respect our laws and continue to publish fake shit we block them until they pay their fines and start respecting the laws. And trust me there is no communism censorship here in Romania, the TV is terrible still , you get tons of commercial to shitty suppliments and gambling, you get politicians presenting their bullshit conspiracies, you get the hosts claiming that Soros is doing everything that is wrong in the country and this days also Macron and France are big villains (because they upset Putin and the Zeds are super, duper butt hurt )), you can see ladies presenting themselves as "doctors in energy-shit-karma-bullshit" and claiming the vaccines caused a giant number of allergies and other crap that she and her company with ehr supplements will sell. We still let people to be idiots but we need to not be idiots like a society and let paid and organized attacks on our population to continue, and we need to do more against this state organized attacks. (as I mentioned previously but maybe in other comment faked documents were sent by mail to people, this is clearly a state sponsored action, they had names and addresses, they falsified documents and then paid for physical mail delivery to make it look more authentic ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | littlecranky67 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Clear case of "motive justifies the means". I think in a free democracy, no one should block any propaganda, as it the responsibility of the individual to asses what to read and what not. In a democracy, it is more dangerous to censor and justify the means with motive - this opens the door to unjust censorship. |
| |
| ▲ | mnw21cam 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The best counter-argument I can provide to your wonderful ideal is that people are stupid, and they are vulnerable to being manipulated into believing dangerous peace-disrupting falsehoods by propaganda. | | |
| ▲ | littlecranky67 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Spinning your thoughts further, you assume that stupidity is not some kind of freedom that you get to enjoy in a democracy. The opposite is true, people are free to be stupid, and if the majority is stupid, the smart people have to give in to the fact that stupid people make the rules (by voting). The whole idea of supressing stupidity in a democracy leads to some sort of elitist society. | | |
| ▲ | Barrin92 4 days ago | parent [-] | | >The whole idea of supressing stupidity in a democracy leads to some sort of elitist society. there's nothing wrong with this. Stable democracies tend to be republican and elitist. One of the reasons why the US has been, until recently, an exceptionally stable country was because decision making was largely insulated from the whims of the public. Democracy properly understood is best used as a tool for legitimacy and as a check against the worst abuses of power, not actually as a tool for decision making. Having the inmates run the asylum is generally a bad idea, we've known this since Plato. |
| |
| ▲ | moron4hire 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | If the people are too stupid to discern propaganda from truth, then they are too stupid to vote. | | |
| ▲ | jdiff 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Nobody is immune to propaganda. Thinking you are paradoxically makes you more susceptible. |
|
| |
| ▲ | morkalork 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What if at the end of the day, that propaganda does work and leaving it unopposed is as much a danger to democracy as censorship? It seems like a scenario where you have to pick your poison now, the last 100 years have shown populations can be manipulated. | | |
| ▲ | rvnx 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Democracy is sneaky refined domination, subtle enough that masses do not see through it, but it is elites controlling the masses. At the end, this political system is about supporting current power who settled by force (and to whom you have to pay a tax to not be sent into physical jail, and all your belongings taken). Remember that at the beginning, these nice people are actually people who killed to be in place, and collected a lot of power and money, and that are now defending their position. Kingdoms, then Dictatorship were too unstable, and this gave birth to Democracy, still with the same elites. In some way, it is a softer continuation of conquest-coercion dressed as consent. The newest generations use propaganda to settle; the approach changes, but the goal is ultimately the same. | | |
| ▲ | imcritic 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That description fits any authority, not just democratic. The state is an apparatus of coercion. Always was, always will be. | | |
| ▲ | rvnx 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Sadly yes. Even original Greek democracy was completely broken (women couldn't vote for example, like in many countries even recently). There is a saying: if voting would change things, it is long time that it would have been forbidden |
| |
| ▲ | 6LLvveMx2koXfwn 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What would you propose instead of democracy? |
|
| |
| ▲ | DoctorOW 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Clear case of "motive justifies the means". Except, in the case of RT, it was not justified in an abstract way at all. Consistently "reporting" on stories counter-indicated by all available evidence. To put it another way, if a judge can imprison a murderer for life as justified by the motive of reducing murders, what's stopping them from imprisoning everyone with no justification at all? Well, in practice the evidence required is quite a hurdle to this. If you're not arguing that RT is innocent of what it has been accused, then you're arguing against the concept of punitive action outright. | | |
| ▲ | vintermann 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It used to be common sense among non-authoritarians, that propaganda just becomes more potent from suppression. Plenty of people have never seen moon hoax theorists' propaganda. They imagine if they see it, they'll quickly see through it for its absurdity. But they're often wrong. Moon hoax theorist's propaganda is actually much better than you think. They can point out lots of "inconsistencies", which do have an explanation, but aren't immediately obvious at all. You see they have experience meeting people like you, but you don't have experience meeting people like them. I used moon hoaxers as an example because their sophisticated propaganda actually have been exposed and explained a few times, although it still isn't common knowledge why e.g. it seems the exact same rock is right behind an astronaut in two different photos. But that isn't nearly as true for suppressed ideologies. You haven't heard their arguments. | | |
| ▲ | DoctorOW 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Your example of moon landing theories isn't an apt comparison because you're picking a fringe group. RT already had millions of international followers on Facebook, YouTube, etc., often more than high quality journalism outlets. I've been online long enough to see RT showing up uninvited in my feeds before. Consider the cost of the sites I listed. Literally, how do you pay these companies? With the monetization of your attention, first and foremost. Good journalism costs money to produce, leaving good journalists unable to be the highest bidder. | | |
| ▲ | vintermann 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Point is, you should be glad the attempt at censoring RT fails pretty bad. If it had been more effective, more people would become very impressed the first time they came across a new to them, consistent (more or less!) narrative universe in which the bad guys are the good guys. Not only that, but their narrative incorporates a bunch of entirely true, verifiable damning truths about "our" side. | | |
| ▲ | DoctorOW 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > Verifiable damning truths about "our" side I don't have a side in terms of a political entity or official, I'm defending evidence-based action. I genuinely think my life is better because I don't have to defend anyone uncritically, but you're welcome to try and change my mind I guess lol | | |
| ▲ | vintermann 3 days ago | parent [-] | | "Our" side in that particular context obviously means NATO, the US, the five eyes countries, the west etc. Take your pick. And yes, I think you have a side, and I think these groups' foreign policies are 1. Very far from being simply "evidence based" and 2. Not in any meaningful sense under democratic control. Have you ever wondered why so many people actually turn up to vote for Putin in Russia, even though they don't really influence anything by doing so? I think they have simply decided that it's easier to want what they can have. Learn to like the taste of the only course that's on the menu. And I also think that attitude is very common in the western world. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | zahlman 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Consistently "reporting" on stories counter-indicated by all available evidence.... If you're not arguing that RT is innocent of what it has been accused Can you give a concrete example? (Somehow I cannot recall ever seeing one proactively volunteered, in years of people denigrating RT on the Internet.) | | |
| ▲ | DoctorOW 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Sure, they reported that Jewish individuals had to flee Ukraine due to a Nazi takeover and a supposed ongoing genocide. There's no evidence of the fleeing or the genocide happening. This was one of the false narratives cited in the EU court's ruling. > Somehow I cannot recall ever seeing one proactively volunteered I err on the side of brevity, not seeing a claim that RT's removal was unjust in the comment I was responding to, I felt no need to justify it myself. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | vintermann 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's true, Russia could be said to engage in full-blown hybrid warfare according to some definitions. I don't want to downplay what they do at all. But if you applied it consistently, you'd have to admit that Germany, the US, and many other Western countries also engage in full-blown hybrid warfare, against their own populations. |
| |
| ▲ | jijijijij 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > But if you applied it consistently, you'd have to admit that Germany, the US, and many other Western countries also engage in full-blown hybrid warfare, against their own populations. Just because two things superficially share some traits doesn't mean they are equivalent, at all. "Full-blown warfare against their own populations" is a bit dramatic, don't you think? As a German, I can tell you, while the government doesn't much act to my benefit, I am not exactly at war with them either. Intelligence, military and police don't have the competence or power, either. Most importantly, like in many proper democracies, there is a plurality of opinions and oversight in parliament, which prevents this sort of thing at scale. "Full-blown warfare" would imply a grand conspiracy, that's simply not factual. Apart from the UK, Hungary and Poland, I think that's true for most western countries. The US is a bit exceptional, of course, since... well, I don't know what the fuck they are smoking there. |
|
|
| ▲ | jddj 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I didn't get the impression they were making any value judgement |
| |
| ▲ | mtsr 4 days ago | parent [-] | | You’re right. I guess I am. I’m pretty happy RT is blocked. | | |
| ▲ | jstanley 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Why? | | |
| ▲ | mtsr 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Because it’s turning out that too many people are susceptible to (this specific, but also other) propaganda. | | |
| ▲ | Amezarak 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If you think the masses are too susceptible to unapproved propaganda to the extent we have to censor it, it’s not clear to me that you can consistently believe democracy should be your form of government, as opposed to some sort of rule by experts/the rich/the educated/aristocrats/something else. It’s effectively saying the masses get a choice unless it’s the wrong choice. I believe in democracy. If people want to listen to ridiculous and false Russian propaganda or support Russia against Ukraine they should be able to without hindrance, even if their politicians or the better informed don’t like it. It’s their job to persuade their fellows. They shouldn’t get to declare their beliefs are right and beyond democratic contestation. Sometimes democracies make really bad decisions. Alciabiades conned the Athenians into the disastrous Sicilian Expedition. That’s the tradeoff you get for having a democracy. Declaring some subjects out of bounds is taking away democracy and installing something else instead, with those tradeoffs, that we as a society decided we weren’t going to make, without consensus. | | |
| ▲ | mtsr 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Some people mainly come to political positions for emotional reasons rather than substantive ones. These people are generally easy to reach for populists and propagandists. Many of the real problems in society, unfortunately, have no easy solutions and require very substantive evaluation, weighing expert opinions, etc. In the current environment it has become very hard to get a lot of people to even consider these or, if they want, elect someone to do it in their stead. TLDR: populism + propaganda causes significant dysfunction in democracies, especially ones that aren’t winner-takes-all. | | |
| ▲ | Amezarak 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | None of these problems are new. The problems have been well-understood since the founding of all Western democracies and we accepted that trade off, as we decided the alternative systems were all worse. You can find this very debate in newspapers and CC notes (in America)at the time, about “false rumors” stirred up by “designing men.” These are all the exact same arguments made by regimes like the CCP as to why their authoritarian methods are necessary. It’s all for the public order and the public good as unfortunately, many people are stirred up even against their own interest by meddlers, demagogues, and foreign interests. Fortunately, the CCP knows better, as the Party makes sure that the experts are making decisions based on all the data. I would prefer to live in a democracy, and it astounds me to see people in the West repeating word for word what Russians and Chinese regime apologists say about their governments, all while explaining it’s all necessary to protect democracy. | |
| ▲ | rdm_blackhole 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Some people mainly come to political positions for emotional reasons rather than substantive ones As opposed to your positions. The masses, well, they think wrong, but you, you thought long and hard about everything and you came to the right conclusions. What's next? Give the right to vote only to the "right" people? After all, if you can't trust the judgment of the masses because their views are based mainly on emotional reasons then surely you don't think they should have a say in how their country should be run? | | |
| ▲ | mtsr 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I realize very well the problems of following this line of thought. But clearly populism combined with propaganda isn’t working out either in a number of countries. Should we just stop thinking about causes and what could be done about it, because it’s uncomfortable to think about it? | | |
| ▲ | rdm_blackhole 4 days ago | parent [-] | | This is not an ad-hominem attack. You are presenting an argument and I am pointing out the flaws in it. I am also presenting the logical conclusion of your argument that maybe you were not comfortable making in your original comment, that is that a certain part of the population is not capable of thinking rationally and therefore, someone else must decide what they should be able to see, hear and read because otherwise they may make the "wrong" choices. That, in turn implies that their votes could be also swayed by emotional reasons, so if you think that these people are not capable of making up their own mind about the issues that we face today, then surely, you are not fine with having them express their opinion in the voting booth. > But clearly populism combined with propaganda isn’t working out either in a number of countries. So your solution to populism is to refrain the population from accessing views that you find problematic? > I realize very well the problems of following this line of thought I don't think you do because if you did then you would know that having the state decide what citizens should have the right to see or hear is exactly the same kind of rhetoric that authoritarian regimes use today. > Should we just stop thinking about causes and what could be done about it, because it’s uncomfortable to think about it? I don't think anyone is feeling uncomfortable looking at the many issues that the western democracies are facing today. I am uncomfortable however when someone thinks that the solution to these problems is to go down the path of censorship because sooner or later someone will use the same excuse to start censoring political opponents/ so-called undesirable views in the name of saving democracies or protecting the children or fighting terrorism as it has been seen time and time again. The solution to the views that you find problematic such as the ones expressed on RT is not found in the reduction of free speech, it is done through education and demonstration of the facts. | | |
| ▲ | generic92034 4 days ago | parent [-] | | So, if democracy means you have to trust people to make up their mind and decide for themselves, unconditionally, then why is there hardly any system with even elements of direct democracy (in contrast to the parliamentary/representative approach)? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | petre 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It’s their job to persuade their fellows. Sorry, I'm more confortable with RT being blocked than having another Adolf Hitler screaming their own propaganda. Screw Russia and China. The Internet blocking committee should probably also block Tiktok while they're at it, as it makes people's brains rot. | | |
| ▲ | Amezarak 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Sorry, I'm more confortable with RT being blocked than having another Adolf Hitler screaming their own propaganda. Is that really a good example? Weimar Germany regularly suppressed and censored Nazi newspapers and publications, shut down hundreds of Nazi newspapers, and even at one point suppressed party gatherings.[1] Obviously, it did not work, and the Nazis used the same laws and precedent to suppress their enemies when they took power, and were able to campaign with statements like "in all of Germany, why are WE silenced?" You can take two things away from this: 1. Weimar should have suppressed the Nazis EVEN HARDER. Weimar needed an even more stringent censorship regime, shutting down any publication and arresting the editors at the slightest whiff of wrongthink. They should have deployed informers to identify and arrest dissidents before they broke out into the public arena. OR 2. Weimar Germany was a deeply unpopular and dysfunctional regime that had already failed. Governments should do better to represent the interests of their people so that things never get to that point. The Nazis would never have obtained any power if Germany had been doing well and people felt represented by their government, no matter what kind of crazy propaganda they put out; people don't choose extremism because of propaganda, they become propagandized when they are deeply disaffected. Censorship only further delegitimized the regime and increased the popularity of the Nazis, as it showed they were a threat to the people in power that were perceived to be mismanaging the country. [1] https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/wo... | |
| ▲ | rdm_blackhole 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You are comfortable with the blocking until the politicians start blocking something you care about. When that happens, you won't be happy anymore and you will go on Twitter complaining that your government is turning fascist in a hurry and ask how nobody did anything to stop this. But you probably think that it's never going to happen because you are one of the good people, not the scum of the earth that dares watching Tiktok. | | |
| ▲ | petre 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Don't worry, nobody would stop it anyway, at least nobody on Twitter and Tiktok. The Kremlin is paying the nazis to scream, shout and create diversions. Then they could justify other de-nazifying invasions. The only ones rallying now are the nazis, screaming and shouting, oh no, cancelled elections. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | rdm_blackhole 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | How convenient. This is the same argument as for encryption. You can't have encryption only for the good guys and not for the criminals. You either have encryption that protects everyone including criminals or you have no encryption. In this case, you can't have free speech while advocating for censorship against what you consider to be propaganda. Either everyone has the right to express themselves, including pro war lunatics or you right to free speech will eventually go extinct because then it's only a matter of time before someone else will use the same argument to start censoring a topic or an idea that you care about and they will do it the with the same zeal as you when you agreed to censor RT. Yet despite this fact that has been proven time and time again, here we are in 2025 with people like you who applaud censorship. |
| |
| ▲ | imcritic 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | jddj 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [Editing this while I still can as although I think it's a reasonable discussion I tend to regret getting too much into politics here.] | | |
| ▲ | qwertox 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It's like handing knives out on a playground. rt.com is handing out propaganda which is meant to influence those who are already distrustful of mainstream institutions. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | jamesnorden 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Surely it will stop at blocking them (the Bad Guys), it will never extend to blocking us (the Good Guys). What a naive way of thinking. |
|
| ▲ | GuB-42 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Which German laws did RT break? Propaganda usually isn't banned, except in specific cases (defamation, hate speech, etc...). But AFAIK, RT is not special in that regard, it is just the kind of content one would expect from a website openly affiliated with Russian authorities. |
|
| ▲ | 05 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Pretty sure the biggest propaganda channel is social media and it's wide open. |
| |
| ▲ | mtsr 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I would be in favor of limiting these channels, because I agree with you it seems necessary. But it’s also something to be quite careful with, I feel. I think the current shift in acceptance of blocking social media for children is a start and allows us to consider it’s positive and negative effects. | |
| ▲ | imcritic 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You see, he isn't against propaganda, he is against propaganda he doesn't agree with. | | |
| ▲ | mtsr 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I’m against propaganda that seeks to actively undermine freedom and democracy in my country and the rest of the EU. Is that so strange? | | |
| ▲ | logicchains 4 days ago | parent [-] | | There is abundant factual evidence that the US worked to undermine democracy in Ukraine in 2014 when Ukraine elected a candidate favourable to Moscow. It's not propaganda to draw attention to that. | | |
| ▲ | immibis 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There's no factual evidence of that, but there is a lot of RT screeching about it, which some individuals believe is the same thing as factual evidence. Thanks for providing evidence, to the other users in this thread, that RT has real effects, so there are real concrete reasons to block it. | |
| ▲ | hkpack 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | As a Ukrainian, this statement of yours is complete and utter bullshit. Where did you heard it? It is not only factually incorrect, every point is just completely wrong: no favorable candidate to Moscow was elected in 2014, US did not worked to undermine democracy and there is absolutely zero evidence of both of these things happened. This is what RT and other propaganda networks is dangerous, it creates a fake reality which people believe in. Then you act on this knowledge as if it is real. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | zosima 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, it's not. Social media is massively censored in many EU countries (and UK). |
|
|
| ▲ | f1shy 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not OP, but there is strong censorship. The previous government sent a police brigade to a random dud that said something like “he is a clown” or similar (don’t remember the details). In Germany you have to be extremely careful with what you say, and how you say it, because you can be in jail faster than you think. There are people who see that as positive, because are used to be extremely careful and conscious of their words. But is a very thin line, where one word can obliterate your life as you know it. |
| |
| ▲ | OKRainbowKid 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Please post a source | | |
| ▲ | f1shy 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Here one: translation you can do at leisure. Also there is a sister comment with a similar case. I have a family memver that was also persecuted for hanging a flag saying “the park is for the children “ as they wanted to construct in a park. There are literally thousands of cases constantly of different severity, but freedom looks different to me.
https://www.zdfheute.de/politik/deutschland/habeck-beleidigu... | | |
| ▲ | OKRainbowKid 4 days ago | parent [-] | | "Demnach soll er im Frühjahr 2024 auf X eine Bilddatei mit Bezug zur Nazi-Zeit hochgeladen haben, die möglicherweise den Straftatbestand der Volksverhetzung erfüllen könnte." | | |
| ▲ | f1shy 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The police was sent when he wrote “schwachkopf”. Not before. The association with nazi came much later, and had a pretty good explanation. If you look the coments that guy wrote was CRISTAL CLEAR he was not nazi, and much less antisemitic. Was a clear case of using a law for what it was not intended. |
|
| |
| ▲ | nani8ot 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | In 2021, Andreas Grote, the minister of interior of the Germany city-state Hamburg was called a dick in a tweet. (Andy, you are such a dick). This led to a police search of the home of the Twitter account owner [1]. This sparked a discussion about how to handle hate spech, as for regular people being called a dick does not result in a 06:00 am. police raid with six officers. In the aftermath, a mural in a left wing culture center has been painted over multiple times with the tweet and a call for his resignation [1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/09/pimmelgate-g... [1] https://archive.is/hETjp [2] https://images.welt.de/67dd7b08559c903aae8287ac/12efd9779a84... | | |
| ▲ | petre 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Being called a dick on social media is now hate speech? I thought it was constructive criticism. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | poly2it 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In an ideal society there would be no need to block propaganda. |
| |
| ▲ | rvnx 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Still concerning that there is a Ministry of Truth. The good solution would be the educate the population about critical thinking, and to use their brain when they see information. If you just censor things, you hide the real problems, and end up with dumb people without critical judgment (or no access to information). | | |
| ▲ | simonask 4 days ago | parent [-] | | They do educate people to do that already. But the power of narrative is much stronger than the motivation to do the actual work of checking your sources. It’s very easy to convince anyone to support your cause. Just tell them they are the real victims, that they have been deprived of their rightful privilege, and that it is someone else’s fault. Give them undue credit, take away their inconvenient responsibilities. I promise you, they will have zero motivation to uncover your lies. We have a collective responsibility to protect the truth - the actual, messy, complicated, real-life truth. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | linohh 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Exactly. That isn't going to help the argument whatsoever. Blocking stuff without legal basis is an entirely different ballpark from legally mandated blocks after due process and the option for legal challenges. |
|
| ▲ | Spooky23 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It’s a cycle. The Russian propaganda spends a lot of resources on reinforcing high-minded ideals that provide a scaffolding for the intellectual types to climb on. The suckers and idiots fall for the more odious stuff. |
|
| ▲ | user3939382 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Is Chris Hedges a Russian propagandist? |
|
| ▲ | tomp 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That is a retarded justification. It’s incredibly valuable to understand how the enemy thinks. |
|
| ▲ | ur-whale 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Are you seriously crying about the biggest Russian propaganda channel being blocked The decision to classify something as propaganda should never be the role of a government, much less blocking it. But that's something that's close to impossible for continental European cultures to ever understand, at a gut level. |
|
| ▲ | djfobbz 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Interesting...so facts are just whatever comes pre-approved by your worldview? Handy system! |
|
| ▲ | Argonaut998 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes? |
|
| ▲ | zahlman 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I must ask sincerely: do you know of concrete instances where RT has been shown to claim things that are objectively untrue, that they reasonably ought to have known were untrue? Or is this just about them using the same techniques (selective reporting / emphasis on stories salient to particular worldviews, editorialization etc.) that everyone else uses? For that matter, in most cases where RT has been linked to me, I couldn't see any clear way that the story advanced Russian interests, except perhaps by trying to paint the USA as full of internal social and cultural conflicts. But, frankly, American media does a pretty good job of that, too. (And many of those media outlets have also grossly misrepresented many events relevant to those conflicts — including ones where I know very well that they were misrepresented because I witnessed them first-hand. For example, I watched the Rittenhouse trial live-streamed, and then read media coverage describing something barely recognizable as what I just saw.) (Besides, it's not like they're trying to hide that "rt" stands for Russia Today.) |
| |
| ▲ | petre 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Who cares. Just make it go away, there's too much noise already. I for one don't care about the arguments of some "news outlet" paid for by the ones who attacked Ukraine. The Global Times isn't banned because the CCP is outlining issues using restraint. |
|
|
| ▲ | sorushn 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Can't take the "propaganda" and "misinformation" excuses seriously when the German establishment media has been blatantly lying to their teeth about an ongoing genocide, and smearing anyone who stood for an obvious moral cause with 0 repercussion. They make the Israeli far-right newspapers blush. |
|
| ▲ | honeybadger1 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |